1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 23

[ Page 7915 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: It's my pleasure today, hon. Speaker, to wish happy birthday to someone who is familiar to everybody in this chamber. He's probably outside, camped out and ready for us later. That's Ron Thompson, the BCTV cameraman, who is 52 years old today and who has covered the Legislature for many years. I'd ask all members to wish him a happy birthday.

D. Jarvis: It's my pleasure today to introduce a gentleman, Mr. William Denault, from my riding in North Vancouver-Seymour, who is an expert on health, safety and environmental concerns. Would you please welcome Bill to the House.

I. Chong: Visiting us today are ten exceptional ladies, members of the Lady Laurier Club here in Victoria. This club was formed in 1952, and its members assist local Liberal candidates in all elections. In addition, this club has provided two scholarships annually and raises money for the food bank. It was a pleasure having lunch with them today. I know they're anxiously awaiting question period. I would ask the House and all members to please make them very welcome.

J. Sawicki: I have in the gallery today two very special guests. One of them is well-known to this side of the House and to most Canadians; he's my good friend and political colleague in Burnaby and the MP for Burnaby-Douglas, Svend Robinson. He's here today with his partner Max Riveron. In asking the House to make them both welcome, I'm sure that members would want to join me in wishing Svend well as he continues to struggle back to good health after his accident last year.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a good friend and a colleague. He's also a banker, which makes it particularly special. Larry Wyse is a member of the Royal Bank of Canada. He did serve in the area responsible for my riding, East Vancouver, as a regional banker. Now he has had the good fortune -- and Victoria has had the good fortune -- to be located here. Mr. Wyse has done wonderful community service on various levels, but particularly in working with me on the KidSafe project, bringing a great deal of safety and security to underprivileged kids in East Vancouver. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Here in the precinct there are 69 grade 6 and 7 students from Kirkbride Elementary in Surrey. I would like the House to make them and their teacher, Mr. McCallum, welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: I see in the gallery next to Svend my old friend Barbara Barrett. Since Leonard Krog doesn't work here anymore, I get to introduce her. Hi, Barb.

V. Anderson: Today, on behalf of Bill Barisoff, the MLA for Okanagan-Boundary, I would like to welcome 45 grade 7 students, the adults who are with them, and their teacher, Mr. Eaton, from Similkameen Elementary-Secondary School. They are here visiting the precinct. Please welcome them.

J. van Dongen: Visiting us in the gallery today are a number of grade 10 students from Abbotsford Junior Secondary. They are accompanied by a number of parents and their teacher, Mr. Ray Goerke. I ask the House to make them all welcome.

R. Coleman: Seated in the gallery today is a group of grade 11 and 12 students from The King's School, along with some parents and their teacher, Mr. Beck. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Robertson: With us today we have the former IWA national president, Mr. Gerry Stoney. With Gerry is Bruce Ferguson. I'd like to ask the members to please make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have some representatives from the Burnaby Chamber of Commerce. I might say it's a chamber of commerce that is very popular and very easy to support; I think they do a great job. We have Michael Gau, who is the president, Peter Dickens, who is the past president, and Abby Anderson, who is the general manager. They are here today to meet with the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Kasper: Joining us in the gallery later on will be some 35 students from Brentwood College in Mill Bay. They are joined by their teacher, Mr. J. Atterbury. Would the House please make them welcome.

P. Nettleton: It's my privilege today to introduce a number of residents of northern British Columbia -- to their credit, none of whom are politicians. They are ordinary residents of a number of communities: Ms. Jamie Marshall of Fort St. James; Mr. Greg Deverson, Ms. Sabra McLain, Ms. Kerri Heavenor and Ms. Aneta Harris from Vanderhoof; and from Fraser Lake, Ms. Sheri Hendriks, Ms. Sheryl Parson and Ms. Elaine Storey.

These are folks who have met earlier today with municipal leaders, with the Premier of the province, as well as representatives from the official opposition's health committee, dealing with the current crisis in northern British Columbia -- the crisis with reference to health care delivery. I know that they're anxious; they're looking for answers and for support. Please join me in welcoming them today.

Introduction of Bills

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. P. Priddy presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mental Health Amendment Act, 1998.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move that Bill 22, Mental Health Amendment Act, 1998, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Priddy: This legislation establishes the legal supports necessary for the implementation of the mental health plan. As we announced in January of this year, over the next seven years the mental health plan will significantly improve the quality of care for people with persistent and serious mental illnesses. This bill provides amendments to the Mental Health Act that will help to keep people healthy within their communities, to provide support for people who have breaks

[ Page 7916 ]

or interruptions, to prevent frequent rehospitalization and to provide new protection of patients' rights.

[2:15]

These amendments provide improved access to treatment in the community through greater use of extended-leave provisions. Extended leave allows patients who are still technically committed to be released from hospital to receive supported supervised treatment in the community for designated periods of time. If patients show signs of being unable to maintain their treatment program, they can come back to the hospital before their illness enters a more serious phase. An extended leave has been possible under the Mental Health Act for many years, but in the past it has not been used consistently.

Today's amendments clarify the use of extended leave and help to ensure that in the future, extended leave is used more efficiently and effectively and that it balances the safety and rights of patients and of the community.

The changes will improve access to extended leave by ensuring that the review panels take into account the patient's history of hospitalization and their ability to follow their treatment program when determining whether a patient should be discharged. If the patient is unlikely to adhere to the treatment needed to prevent repeated hospitalizations in the future, involuntary treatment may be continued. If the patient has been on extended leave for more than a year, a review panel chair must review the patient's file and may order a hearing to determine if the patient still meets the criteria for extended leave.

If a patient on extended leave for more than six months is brought back to hospital, she or he will have the same rights to a periodic review of their detention as a person admitted for the first time.

The Speaker: Minister of Health, the two minutes for your statement is up.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. C. McGregor presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Park Amendment Act, 1998.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: This bill introduces a new means of describing parks boundaries, which will help protect the diversity of natural, cultural, heritage and recreational values that is unique to B.C. and so important to British Columbians. This new process will reduce uncertainty by describing park boundaries in a manner that is more accurate, more understandable and easier to locate on the ground. As members noted last year, current written metes-and-bounds descriptions for park boundaries are often lengthy, leading to difficulty in

interpretation and understanding. Moreover, these written descriptions sometimes lack the precision necessary to meet current resource management objectives and standards.

This bill begins the process of replacing those written descriptions, which may include certain technical inaccuracies, with legally mapped boundaries which are more accurate, understandable and practical. I have provided a set of the maps to the office of the Clerk of the House and to each party for members to review. I am confident that all members will find these map descriptions much easier to understand.

Bill 23 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. J. Kwan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Assessment Amendment Act, 1998.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to present the Assessment Amendment Act, 1998. This bill will make the appeal process more accessible and will cut red tape, which will ensure that assessment disputes are resolved in a timely manner and will help reduce the current backlog of appeals. Bill 21 will shift the focus of the assessment appeals system from adversarial hearings to facilitated processes aimed at resolution of disputes and determination of actual values. This will reduce the cost to taxpayers and promote speedier resolution of appeals.

This legislation will allow greater openness and transparency, while protecting personal and sensitive information related to assessments, as recommended by the privacy commissioner. Bill 21 will modernize our assessment appeal system, reduce the backlog of appeals and provide better value for taxpayers.

I move that Bill 21 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 21 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

B.C. POSITION ON COHO FISHERY

J. van Dongen: My question is to the Minister of Fisheries. The federal Fisheries minister has just been advised by a special panel that there are two options for the protection of coho stocks. One option is a total ban on all coho fishing, and the other basic option is a mortality level of up to 10 percent. Can the minister tell us today which option this provincial government is advocating to Ottawa?

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the member for addressing this situation, which is very, very serious for British Columbia and also for our relationship not only to Ottawa but to our three neighbouring states of Washington, Oregon and Alaska.

The coho crisis report that Minister Anderson passed on to me yesterday afternoon, as a matter of fact, really contains

[ Page 7917 ]

nothing new from what we've known all along. A couple of the major principles in that report are that . . . . There are dozens of references that the DFO has been underfunded on this coast and unable to protect habitat -- that without a treaty, conservation will fall on the backs, the shoulders and the pocketbooks of Canadian fishermen. As a result, we've been in contact with Minister Anderson. We're expecting him to release tomorrow the decision that Ottawa will make on the zero-to-6 or the zero-to-10, depending upon the north or the south.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Abbotsford.

J. van Dongen: The federal government has promised a decision within the next few days, and surely this provincial government has a position as to which option they want to see. I'm going to ask the minister again: which option does the minister support -- a total ban on coho fishing or up to a 10 percent level of mortality? Which option is it? Is the minister simply going to wait for the federal decision and then criticize the decision afterwards?

Hon. D. Streifel: The member is well aware that we had Dr. Parzival Copes on the coast, ahead of the federal minister and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Copes report indicated that if there are going to be recommendations on downturns in the fishing on the coast of British Columbia, they be shared across all sectors. The Copes report also suggested, and recommended strongly, that it's possible to carry on fisheries in areas where there is still a fair catch of coho to be had, and that in areas where the coho are imperilled and on the brink of extinction, we stand down those fisheries.

That's been the position of this minister and this government, as supported by the Copes report.

G. Plant: Well, I'm still waiting for the answer, hon. Speaker. And do you know what? British Columbians have been waiting for a long time for this government to develop a strategy around fisheries that is something more than wait and whine, something more than do nothing and complain about it afterwards.

The Speaker: And your question?

G. Plant: Let's give the Minister of Fisheries one more chance. What is the number that he is recommending on behalf of British Columbia? What is the position he is taking on behalf of British Columbia in his conversations -- if he's having any -- with the Minister of Fisheries? Is it zero or is it 10 percent?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll try this once more for the members opposite.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Streifel: You may want to try harder, hon. member. Once in a while, you may want to try some support for communities on this coast that are in dire straits.

Under the Pacific Salmon Treaty agreement signed by the Premier and the Prime Minister last year, we commissioned Dr. Parzival Copes to consult with the communities and the fishing communities on our coast to develop a made-in-British Columbia plan that would support fisheries on this coast, that would support a fishery for the future on this coast and that would support coastal communities. I have yet to hear from the official opposition whether they support zero-to-6 or zero-to-10, or whether they support a made-in-British Columbia position that supports the coastal communities.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Streifel: This is the position from British Columbia: the Copes report that supports limited action in the fisheries and action in the fisheries where it's needed.

NORTHERN HEALTH CARE

S. Hawkins: Making British Columbians wait for answers seems to be a hallmark of this government. After three months of waiting for this government to provide solutions for the northern health care crisis, northern community leaders had to come to the Legislature today at their own expense to try and get some answers from the Premier. And do you know what? They got no answers. There were no interim solutions -- none at all. They were told to keep on waiting. Well, we have a pregnant mom here, Sabra McLain, who has come to tell the Premier that she's frightened. She's worried . . .

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

S. Hawkins: . . . for herself and for her family.

The Speaker: Hon. member . . . .

S. Hawkins: She wants to know: will the Premier stand up today in the House and tell Ms. McLain that she doesn't have to worry anymore, that she will have her baby in her home hospital, in her hometown of Vanderhoof?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. P. Priddy: Let's just put this statement made by the member into a bit of context. There have not been three months of waiting with no solutions. There was first a $450,000 solution to the Northern Interior regional health board for providing relief, which was rejected by the physicians. Then the physicians said, "For $200,000 more, we'll go back to work," and the $650,000 proposition was rejected. There was then a suggestion that we agreed to, to change the northern isolation allowance . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member . . . .

Hon. P. Priddy: . . . and the next day in the paper it said that the doctors had rejected that.

So let's be really clear. This has not been three months of no activity. Everybody, whether they live in Victoria or Vancouver or Surrey . . . . While they can't experience what people in the north are experiencing, they nevertheless want people to have their physicians back at work.

For the mom that's pregnant . . . . I mean, lots of us who have sort of done that wonderful experience . . . .

[ Page 7918 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the Minister of Health has the floor.

Hon. P. Priddy: The Leader of the Opposition . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . . Minister, would you wind up your answer, please.

Hon. P. Priddy: The Leader of the Opposition said awhile ago in this House that I wouldn't cross the street to see rural physicians. Well, the physicians up there won't cross the street to deliver a baby for a patient that they've always looked after. Let them go back to work while the solutions are being found.

S. Hawkins: The people up there are feeling neglected and betrayed by this government. All they get from this government are broken promises and more studies; that's all they've been getting. The mayor and patients are tired of that. They are absolutely tired of a government that is unwilling to act. This issue has been studied to death.

The Speaker: Hon. member, we need your question.

S. Hawkins: We have a study, done in May 1995 . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat, please.

We need order in the House on all sides, and we need to come to the question. You know about supplementary questions, hon. members. All of you are to have minimal

preambles. I've let members have quite a lot of leeway; on

preambles there has been a lot of leeway.

The hon. member may now ask her question.

S. Hawkins: The folks here today want to know why there is a study . . . .

The Speaker: No props, hon. member.

S. Hawkins: They want to know from the Premier . . .

The Speaker: No props. We know the rules.

S. Hawkins: . . . why there's a study in the Legislature, a Northern and Rural Health Task Force . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, order, order!

The members know that there are a lot of rules. In the . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, let's have order. Before we proceed, we must have order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, both sides of the House must come to order before we can proceed and before I recognize anyone.

All right. The members know about props, and you know where they are to be used. They stay on the tables. Everyone knows that; hon. members know that.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui will come to order.

Hon. member for Okanagan West, proceed.

S. Hawkins: My question is to the Premier. Why did he order another study when there's one in the Legislative Library from 1995 that was done by 12 northern community leaders, called the "Report of the Northern and Rural Health Task Force"? It has 139 recommendations in it. Why did he order another study when there's one collecting dust on the Legislative Library shelves?

Hon. P. Priddy: We did not order another study. What we did was place in those communities someone who is credible, who is well received by physicians, by elected people, by people in the community, to look for . . .

[2:30]

Interjections.

Hon. P. Priddy: Our mothers would be so unhappy.

. . . a particular solution.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Okanagan West, please come to order.

I suggest that we move on to the next question. I recognize the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Well, hon. Speaker, it's a sad day in British Columbia when people from the north have to bring in a hospital bed and put it on the lawn of the Legislature to get attention for health care in the north. Last year the Minister of Health claimed that northern patients only had to wait three months . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Listen up, buddy.

. . . to see an orthopedic surgeon. Today, hon. Speaker, the situation is much worse. I quote Dr. Chris Coetzee: "I have close to 400 people waiting for surgery. At the current rate of OR time, it will take 15 months to work it down." That's the year 2000, almost.

With his government's commitment to health care, will the Premier now stand up and tell us why health care in the north has gotten worse?

The Speaker: The Minister of Health.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I encourage you to come to order. The question was listened to in some silence -- the response also . . . .

[ Page 7919 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, order! Cut off the mikes.

Hon. member, take your seat. We are not going to proceed until there is some order in this House -- on all sides of the House.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Okanagan-Penticton will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, question period is not over yet. I recognize the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, it's a sad day again in British Columbia when we can't even get a straight answer out of this government. They said in the throne speech that health care was at the heart of the throne speech and at the heart of this government, and here they're saying, "Be damned," to northerners: "We don't care about northerners and health care in the north."

You know, Mr. Premier, people in the north are feeling the pain, and I can tell you that they're feeling the pain a heck of a lot longer than they are in the rest of the province of British Columbia. Waiting 15 months for hip and knee and joint replacements is no fun -- absolutely no fun. Will the Premier admit now that his party doesn't give a hoot, doesn't give a damn . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, language.

R. Neufeld: . . . about health care in the north and that two-tier health care is alive and well in British Columbia, thanks to his government?

Hon. G. Clark: What nonsense, from those members opposite! Where was the opposition . . . ? Twice in three or four months have they raised it in question period -- when there are people in the gallery -- to put on a show for their members. Where have they been?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: Where have they been?

The Speaker: Mr. Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: Where have the members of the opposition been in going after . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . the highest-paid doctors in Canada? Where have they been in demanding that they live up to the contract that they signed?

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, would you take your seat, please.

Hon. G. Clark: The doctors . . .

The Speaker: Mr. Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . of this province signed a legal contract to provide services, hon. Speaker. They signed a legal contract -- the rural isolation allowance; a legal contract -- which they are breaking. And they're silent on that side with respect to that shameful behaviour.

On this side of the House we have added $220 million to the health care budget -- more than any province in Canada -- every year for the last seven years, hon. Speaker, and those members never once stood up here.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, thank you. Mr. Premier, time.

Hon. G. Clark: Those members that demand 15 percent tax cuts for big business paid for by cuts to health care have the audacity to stand here and demand more money for doctors.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, would you . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: We will provide more money for health services and more money for more doctors but no more money in the pockets of doctors, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, would you take your seat, please.

Hon. G. Clark: The money should go to patient services, and that's the solution that we're pursuing.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, enough.

I recognize the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, how cowardly for the Premier to wait until he thinks he can have the last word via the red light.

The Speaker: Hon. member, are you rising on a point of order? Question period is now over.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Well, you recognized me.

The Speaker: Do you have a point of order, hon. member? Question period is over; you may take your seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I have now asked you to take your seat. Take your seat. I'm asking the member to take his seat.

[ Page 7920 ]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Hon. members, there are some reports to be presented. I have the honour to present the report of the conflict-of-interest commissioner pursuant to

section 15.1 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order!

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I think that is totally disrespectful on the part of the members . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: The members will come to order. Order, order!

Interjections.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain will withdraw his comments of disrespect for the House. I will give you another chance to withdraw your comments.

G. Farrell-Collins: I will leave.

The Speaker: I recognize that the member has left the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, it is within my power to order the member to not be present for the rest of this sitting. I'm not going to do that at this time, but I want it known to all members that that is within the power of the Chair.

We'll now proceed with the business at hand -- I believe it's the Minister of Finance.

Reports from Committees

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Special Committee of Selection for the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call debate on Motion 48. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

CALGARY FRAMEWORK FOR

DISCUSSION ON CANADIAN UNITY

(continued)

Hon. G. Clark: It's my pleasure to rise to briefly speak in support of the resolution before us. It reflects the wishes of British Columbians in response to the meeting held in Calgary by the nine Premiers and two territorial leaders. I'm very proud to rise in the House today to speak to this resolution. First, I'm proud because I believe it marks a turning point for our province. It sets out, for the very first time, the shared vision that British Columbians hold for the future of our country.

It details, in a constructive and positive way, the views held by British Columbians on issues that concern all Canadians, as well as issues that the people of B.C. believe must find a place on the national agenda.

I'm proud to be here for a second reason: I believe the process that produced this resolution delivers on the commitment our government made to British Columbians when the Premiers met in Calgary last fall. In Calgary we promised that there would be no backroom deals and that it would not be -- as it had been before -- a top-down process with the Premiers going out and telling the people what was good for them. This is a position still held, in some respects, today by some elements in the country who believe that the Premiers should go in and cut a deal to deal specifically with the challenge of Quebec.

That has been rejected by British Columbia time and again. It was rejected by me on behalf of the people of British Columbia when I went to Calgary. This resolution continues to reflect that there have been and will be no backroom deals with respect to the issues before us on national unity and that British Columbians will have their say. It came about as a result of a grass-roots process with all British Columbians having their say -- or a chance to have their say -- on what it means to be Canadian.

[2:45]

The process that has occurred has occurred in the open. Every British Columbian has had the opportunity to participate and contribute to the formulation of the resolution now before the House. In Calgary we also said that we were not interested in a new round of constitutional talks. This resolution also delivers on that commitment. There are no changes here that require constitutional change. In fact, constitutional change is not reflected in this document, and it has been repeatedly rejected -- by myself and by other Premiers -- as the course for British Columbia at this time.

There are changes, however, which can be made in the spirit of renewed federalism to strengthen our country for the twenty-first century -- changes which reflect the desire and indeed the right of British Columbians to play their full role in building a strong and vibrant Canada.

British Columbians do not want out of Canada; they want into Canada. British Columbians believe they have con-

[ Page 7921 ]

structive solutions that work not just for British Columbia but also for the entire country. This is the first time that British Columbians, through a public and open process, have engaged in a dialogue without preconceived commitments made by the Premier of the day, without a preconceived and codified resolution which they were asked to endorse. It's the first time that we had a grass-roots process. It was open. It involved individual citizens; it involved political parties from all sides of the House; it involved federal parliamentarians.

And they arrived at a resolution which accurately reflects the wishes of British Columbia and which is reflected, at least in part, in great measure by the resolution before the House today.

I want to briefly touch on the process which led to the resolution and to the framework discussion in Calgary. Last September in Calgary, nine Premiers and two territorial leaders unanimously agreed on a framework for open and grass-roots public consultation with Canadians on strengthening the Canadian federation. It bemuses me to read in the newspaper that elites and others who characterize the discussions at Calgary . . . . I know it may be presumptuous of me to say this, but I was there. There was no preconceived Calgary declaration. There was no declaration; there was a framework for discussion.

This is not a small point. It is a major point that many media outlets, eastern Canadian politicians and federal government politicians now somehow decide that this is a declaration which is unamendable.

This is sophistry. The discussions around Calgary were the opposite of a declaration. They were the opposite of an unamendable motion agreed to by Premiers in the back room. I would not be part of that. Going into the discussions, I said I would not be part of that; and I was not part of that, coming out of the discussions. This is called a framework for discussion not because some bureaucrat wrote it as a title but because it was agreed to. Indeed, the Premiers negotiated exactly what it would say. It was contemplated from the beginning.

I was consistent from the beginning and consistent after the meeting that this statement of principles, this framework for discussion, would by definition have to include other issues existing in the country today and other concerns.

The reason for that is extremely simple. You cannot have a backroom deal with Premiers and then say: "This is unamendable, and now let's go consult British Columbians." That's what happened on Meech Lake; that's what happened on Charlottetown. That is the wrong way to go. It may still be what some Premiers and the federal government believe is the correct approach, but it is not acceptable to British Columbians. It would not pass in British Columbia.

We said we would agree to a framework encapsulating the principles that the Premiers felt had some merit with respect to the makeup of the country, but it was de facto amendable. It was desired that the people of the country get involved for a change in grass-roots deliberations with a view to amending what the Premiers said, in order that it more accurately reflect the will of the people. This, I believe, is significant. This is exactly what we wanted.

This is what British Columbians chose to do, and for a change, as a result of that, we have a resolution which has some very specific elements unique to British Columbia and some specific elements from British Columbia that they believe would help build a country.

In October -- after Calgary -- I announced a panel of 22 British Columbians, a widely diverse group of individuals and elected representatives, to conduct a consultation process throughout British Columbia. I want to acknowledge the leadership of that panel in particular, although all members -- including members in the House today from both sides, particularly the opposition critic for the Attorney General, the leader of Progressive Democratic Alliance, my colleagues on the government side, the member from Cranbrook and others -- were part of this deliberation.

I congratulate all of the members, particularly the citizen panel members but also all members from all sides of the House, for their leadership and commitment to making this process work. I want to also thank, as I said, forest executive Jake Kerr and Delta teacher Alice McQuade for the outstanding leadership and time commitment they gave to this project. They held public meets all around the province, met with hundreds of young people in student groups and received 750 oral and written submissions.

Every household in the province was also provided with a detailed brochure and questionnaire giving all British Columbians a chance to participate. Some 50,000 responses were received. In total, it added up to the most comprehensive consultation -- not just in British Columbia but in Canada.

The B.C. Unity Panel reviewed the information and determined where there were areas of consensus. They also did some extensive polling -- again, a kind of modern technique which should not be dismissed in terms of testing the will of the people on these kinds of questions. They presented this report to the province in February of this year. On behalf of the people of the province, I again want to thank them for their clear and comprehensive report on what British Columbians had to say.

I want to turn now to the resolution before us. I want to look at what, in the resolution, is common to the framework agreement developed in Calgary. Again, it was contemplated that this framework would be amended to reflect the wishes of the people. Anything other than that would be to prejudge the consultation process. However, it was desired and believed -- I believed, as did all the Premiers -- that there would be areas of consensus across the country flowing either out of the Calgary framework or out of the deliberations of the respective provinces.

There were three themes that became clear and were supported by British Columbians. First is the equality of individuals balanced by the recognition of diversity. It is, I believe, a profound Canadian view that equality of individuals is a prerequisite to any constitution, and we should in no way, through constitutional change or otherwise, trample on the essential belief that we have equality of individuals. But it also recognized, in an important pluralistic way, the Canadian reality of a diversity of views, conditions and peoples.

In this case, all the deliberations recognized the important historic and continuing contribution and rights of aboriginal people. It recognizes the multicultural nature of Canada and the importance that Canada places on being a home to many thousands of people from around the world. So it is the equality of individuals balanced by a very clear recognition of diversity. This was clearly supported in the British Columbia deliberations, I think overwhelmingly.

The second essential feature of Calgary was the equality of provinces, but again acknowledging the distinctive features of each. This again is important. This is equality of provincial status in our constitution as an important foundation for what we believe as a country -- but not being blind to the uniqueness, or dare I say the distinctiveness, of individual provinces, including Quebec. British Columbians have no hesitation in recognizing the distinct society of Quebec, the unique nature of Quebec and its importance to the vitality of our country.

[ Page 7922 ]

Distinct provinces in a country of provinces of equal status: this was a foundation of Calgary which was reflected time and again in the deliberations in British Columbia.

The third theme was that cooperation and partnership can best renew federalism and serve the needs of Canadians. Now, that may sound a rather elementary view. It may sound like motherhood, someone has stated. But I think it's profound, and I think it is deeply held by Canadians that it makes no sense to have one province going one way on national programs and other provinces going another way, or the federal government unilaterally imposing positions on provinces without consultation.

The only way a decentralized country like Canada can prosper is with cooperation from both levels of government: the provincial and the federal. This sounds simple, but in reality it is the source of much of our tension. Much of our problem is a failure of governments to respect that we are not in a country with one level of government superior to the other. We are not in a country where the constitution says that a province is subordinate to the federal government.

We are, frankly, in a country -- perhaps unique in the world -- where provinces have sovereignty in areas of their jurisdictions and where the federal government has sovereignty in areas of its jurisdiction. And it only works when both levels of government work cooperatively, in the interest of the people. That is a profound statement; it is not motherhood. It is real, and it is something worthy of reminding both the provinces and the federal government, every day.

Hon. Speaker, in addition to these three themes -- which really came out of the Premiers' discussion in Calgary as a framework for discussion and which I think are consistent with the views expressed by the people of British Columbia in the deliberations -- British Columbia has added further principles, in the spirit of renewed federalism. This, I say, is significant. British Columbia does not put forward add-ons, as I've heard, for British Columbia's benefit; these are British Columbians' suggestions for how to make the country and the federation stronger. I want to list those three areas that they talked about and that came up in our deliberations.

First, support for national standards. Now, this is what nation-building is really all about. There are those who say: "British Columbia and the richer provinces want more. They want to add something on." That is not what this is about. In this

section -- and this may surprise people . . . . It may surprise some of the elites in Toronto. British Columbians said, "We want national standards for national programs" -- not: "British Columbia standards are better because we're richer" but "National standards for medicare and education."

This is significant because this belies those people that say British Columbians don't want in to Confederation, that British Columbians are greedy or whining or want more. British Columbians said they were deeply concerned about medicare. They were deeply concerned about uneven standards across the country, and they wanted national standards set cooperatively by the provinces and the federal government. This is a significant contribution to the national debate. I have not heard a wealthy province, for a long time, come forward and make the case for national standards for our medicare system.

British Columbia is doing that with this resolution. This is saying that this House and the people of British Columbia do not want checkerboard federalism; they don't want uneven standards in poor parts of the country. They want a national medicare program -- national standards for national programs set cooperatively with the federal government and the provincial government.

Secondly, British Columbians said they support the equalization program and the principle that each province should receive the same level of federal funding per person. Again, it's tempting to dismiss these as simply motherhood; these are not. This is a very significant statement. British Columbia pays into equalization. Indeed, just about three or four years ago British Columbia was the only province in Canada that paid into equalization and did not receive any equalization payments.

[3:00]

If we are to have national programs, if we are to have a country that has rough equality no matter where you live, no matter what your income is, then we must have an equalization program where the richer provinces contribute to the nature of the country. British Columbians -- this may surprise people; this may surprise all the pundits -- said they strongly supported a national equalization program even though British Columbia would pay the bill for other provinces. But they also said something significant as well.

They said we should pay to equalize, through the equalization program, but that where there are national programs, with national standards hopefully, every person should be treated the same, regardless of where they live. In other words an unemployed person in Newfoundland or Quebec or Saskatchewan should get the same amount of federal support as an unemployed person in British Columbia.

If there is an unequal distribution of wealth in the country, then the way to equalize is through equalization, not through discriminatory treatment on national programs. If you want British Columbia and British Columbians to passionately support the need for equalization and national standards, then you must treat British Columbia citizens the same when it comes to national programs. So it says: "Support for equalization. Support for national standards but also per-capita funding for national programs." It is an essential component of the social contract that keeps our country together.

You cannot ask British Columbians to support equalization and then discriminate against British Columbia in every single national program. We support equalization because we want a strong country, and we recognize the need for the richer regions to contribute to the strengths of the country. But we must have national programs set up that treat people the same, regardless of where they live. That is what has broken down.

That is really what has been broken in this country over the last 15 years, and it has led to -- I think it is very dangerous -- what really is three Canadas: Quebec, the richer provinces and the poorer provinces. As long as the federal government fails to recognize the need for national programs that treat everybody the same and to use the equalization program as a form of equalizing the regions, it is a recipe for disaster for the future of this country.

And I fear for it greatly, because every time I'm at a Premiers' conference -- and my successor and, I'm sure, my predecessors -- it is extremely difficult to seek to express the generosity of the people of British Columbia to national programs when we are treated systematically in a discriminatory fashion. So the coupling of those two -- reinvigorated support for equalization, combined with the principle that each province should receive the same level of federal funding per person -- was an essential thrust of the discussion.

The third theme or principle in this resolution is support for provinces assuming greater responsibility in areas important to them. This is also important. The challenge in this country is the domination of the issue of Quebec and their aspirations, legitimate or not. When I go to Ottawa, the only question the media ask me is whether Quebec should get this or whether Quebec should get that or what our position is on

[ Page 7923 ]

this or that issue with respect to Quebec. When you deal with the federal bureaucracy or the federal government, they are consumed by this issue.

Clearly the issue of Quebec is critical to the future of the country. Clearly we should be dealing with this question and not be afraid of this question. But are we to put aside every single substantive issue in this country and in its regions until we get something that deals with the issues of Quebec? Is it not far healthier to deal with the legitimate aspirations of peoples, regardless of where they live, including the people of Quebec?

Is it not healthier to go to the people of Quebec and say yes, you have legitimate aspirations, and so do the people of British Columbia with respect to unique things about B.C. -- for example, the fishery, which should be managed and operated by coastal communities here in British Columbia?

But make no mistake. What British Columbians said was not a naked power grab for constitutional change for the fishery resource to come to B.C. It was an essential principle that the country should be flexible enough to deal with legitimate issues that pertain to each and every province. I tell you this, hon.

Speaker: if the federal government for once was to recognize the legitimacy of issues pertaining to British Columbia, I know for a fact that British Columbians would be far more generous with respect to the legitimate aspirations of other provinces and other peoples, including the people of Quebec, to deal with their legitimate regional aspirations and concerns. I think that is a very important point.

The three principles we have added to the Calgary declaration, which fleshed out Calgary and came out of the discussions, are ones that have some peculiar or unique aspects that pertain to British Columbia. But they are also British Columbians' way of saying: "Here are some ideas that can actually strengthen the federation" -- which includes Quebec, by the way. Again, I just want to summarize:

1. Equality of individuals balanced by diversity.

2. Equality of provinces, but recognizing the unique nature of Quebec in Canadian society.

3. Cooperation and partnership with respect to a renewed federalism that involves both levels of government.

Then the three issues we've added: first, support for national standards -- important, coming from British Columbia; second, support for equalization payments but also support for per-capita funding on national programs; and thirdly, support for all provinces assuming greater responsibility in the areas closer to home or important to them which don't denigrate the national programs and national standards, which we all want.

It's clear from the discussions -- and from this deliberation, from this resolution, from the report of the unity committee -- that British Columbians feel passionately about what it means to be Canadian and about their desire to build a strong and united nation. This is not some trivial exercise to rubber-stamp what the Premiers have decided in Calgary or to try to add on powers for British Columbia.

When you listen to what these 22 men and women who travelled British Columbia had to say, they were passionate about the country. They were passionate about British Columbia playing a role in that country, and they were passionate about the legitimacy of British Columbia having a say on the national agenda about ways in which we could help contribute to a stronger country. Sometimes we're so preoccupied with the differences between us that we forget what a great country Canada is already and how fortunate we all are to be Canadians.

British Columbians want to play a constructive role in building a strong and united nation. We recognize not only that Quebec is unique in Canada but that it's an important part of the country, and I say this proudly. It was said to the panel repeatedly, and it belies some of the eastern media's perception of British Columbia. I'm advised by the people who were on the panel that people came out and passionately said that they love Quebec, that Quebec is unique, that Canada includes Quebec and that we want them to be part of our Canada.

British Columbians have a passionate commitment to Quebec being part of our country and to the recognition of its uniqueness in our spectacular country. The resolution before us moves the Calgary framework forward for discussion by offering a uniquely British Columbian perspective on the national debate. I commend all members to support this resolution unanimously.

G. Plant: I'm honoured to have an opportunity to participate in this debate and to make remarks that I think need to be made, perhaps as nothing else other than a cautious counterpoint to what the Premier has said, much of which is passionate, powerful, important and, I think, necessary to this debate. But I think I would not be making the contribution which an opposition is required to make if I did not express a few cautionary observations.

Let me begin by getting to the point. For all my doubts and reservations about this resolution, about where it came from and where it's going, I believe that there is enough good in it that it warrants my support. But I will not be passionate about it. I will be passionate about Canada, but I am not passionate about this resolution. A speaker said yesterday that this was a historic occasion. Well, I say: "Let history be the judge of that." History is not very forgiving.

Some of those who have spoken on this resolution -- some who spoke yesterday -- were party to a few of those historic occasions in the past. Some spoke in defence of the Meech Lake accord; some spoke in defence of the Charlottetown accord. They assured us then that we were, with those document and those processes, at last along the road to national reconciliation. Well, they were wrong then, and some of them have been wrong more than once. I hope they're not wrong now.

At the heart of this resolution are the seven principles of the Calgary declaration or framework or whatever it is. In an odd sort of way, there is some hope in this document. It was something that nine Premiers and two territorial leaders could agree on last September, and it appears to be something that nine legislative assemblies and two territorial assemblies will agree on. There's hope in that; there's always hope when people can agree.

I have concerns about where this is going to lead us, but if, like me, you see this declaration or this framework as a statement of principles about what it does mean to be a Canadian, then it is surely a good thing that there is growing agreement about these principles.

It is a curious thing -- I think, anyway -- about this declaration that its strength lies less in its individual parts rather than in its whole. If you scrutinize the document carefully -- and I guess it's just my professional background that sooner or later I can't help but do that for a moment or two -- and you read the individual principles carefully, I think you would agree that many of them are, at best, inelegant and some of them are, at worst, confusing.

Let me give two examples. The authors of this document originally described aboriginal peoples as a "gift" to Canada,

[ Page 7924 ]

an expression so patronizing that it has, thankfully, been removed from the resolution before us. And what does the third principle mean to say? It says that Canada is "graced" by an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world. Well, the dictionaries tell us that grace means "unmerited divine assistance given man for his regeneration or sanctification; a virtue coming from God." I would say that if we have anything approaching equality of opportunity in Canada, it is because we as Canadians have worked hard to make it so.

Yet if you put the details to one side, the declaration strikes a useful balance of competing themes. The Premier spoke about this balance. First and foremost is the theme of equality -- the theme of equality of persons and the theme of equality of provinces. But the counterpoint to that theme, and equally important, is the recognition of diversity -- the recognition of difference and the recognition of uniqueness. Someone in the debate yesterday used the word "sameness." Well, we're not all the same. We're not all the same even in the eyes of the law. But we are all as Canadians entitled to equality.

Similarly, the provinces of Canada are not all the same, and each has a role to play in protecting its diverse, unique and special interests; but as provinces they are equal in status. To state the obvious, because sometimes the obvious needs to be said, the government of Quebec has for itself a role to protect the unique character of Quebec society within Canada. But this does not imply special or unequal status for Quebec as a province.

[3:15]

It seems to me that the virtue of this declaration lies in the way that it embodies these themes and others which have been referred to by other speakers. It says, in effect, that you cannot and should not take the package apart; you should take it all. You must take the individual principles and the balance and the tension which is created among the competing principles, because I think that in this case the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

As part of the work done by the Unity Panel, there was a poll. The respondents were asked to walk through what amounted to a three-stage process during the course of the telephone poll. First, early in the poll there were asked whether they approved of the Calgary declaration. At that point in the questioning, 49 percent of the people said that they approved or strongly approved of the declaration, while 38 percent had no opinion. Then the questioners went through the individual principles of the declaration one by one, read them to the people at the other end of the telephone line and asked them one by one whether they agreed with the individual principles.

Here, not surprisingly, there was a diversity of opinion. Although all of the principles received more than a majority of support from the respondents, the range of approval was from a low of 62 percent to a high of 93 percent. That was the result as we went through and asked people one by one about the seven principles in the declaration.

Then the respondents were asked one more time: "Overall" -- and that is the key word -- "do you support or oppose this declaration?" By that point, 80 percent supported the declaration, while only 12 percent opposed it. I think that one of the reasons why that number is so high is because even those British Columbians who might argue about the individual principles and disagree about them are nonetheless prepared to support the declaration as a whole.

I just want to say a thing or two about the Unity Panel, of which I was a member. I think it is significant that when we met as a panel at our first meeting, we decided that we would not try to solve the problems of national unity but, rather, that we would go out and listen to British Columbians, and that when we came to the end of that process, our job was not to forge a new consensus -- not to invent a consensus, a principle or an approach where none existed -- but simply to report what we heard.

We asked British Columbians some questions, and this is what they told us. That is what the report is all about. The Unity Panel report in fact contains no recommendations; it contains no proposals. The Unity Panel simply reported to British Columbians, to the Premier, to the members of this House and to the government what they heard when they asked British Columbians the questions. I think the report is perhaps unique in this respect. It really is a conduit for the voices of British Columbians, and it comes to us as that.

On that basis, what did the Unity Panel hear? Well, British Columbians told the Unity Panel that they had lots of other things on their minds besides national unity. They are, not surprisingly, more concerned about jobs and the economy than they are about national unity, Quebec, bilingualism or those issues. In fact, a majority of British Columbians had not actually even heard of the Calgary declaration; or if they'd heard of it, they were unable to recall anything about it. Polls taken since January suggest that the percentage of people in Canada who know nothing about the Calgary declaration is even higher.

It's worth observing, as a cautionary note to ourselves, that the issue which is occupying our attention today has not in fact grabbed the attention, let alone the imagination, of the majority of British Columbians.

At the same time, I return to the statistics and the figures that I cited a few moments ago. When the Calgary declaration is read to British Columbians point by point, and when they are given a chance to think about it and then asked if they support it, they do support it. So altogether apart from my own views about the Calgary declaration and my own support for it, I think it is entirely appropriate for us in this assembly to pass a resolution which gives expression to the voices of British Columbians who support the declaration.

Let me sum up the good-news side of my remarks this afternoon. I think the support for the Calgary declaration says something about what it means to be a Canadian living in British Columbia, faced both with our own concerns about the federation and with the continuing presence of a strong sovereigntist movement in the province of Quebec. As the resolutions which have thus far been passed in the other legislatures have made clear, the principles in this declaration are principles shared by Canadians across the country. It's starting to look like there is a common set of values which informs our national identity.

But recent history warns us to be cautious and clear at every step of the way forward when we're dealing with the subject of national unity. The Calgary declaration is about renewing the Canadian federation; it is not about amending the constitution. The Calgary declaration does not seek to resurrect the ghost -- long since dead, and rightly so -- of distinct society. Nor does it even begin to invite the reconsideration of the veto formula that exists in our constitution for amending the constitution -- a formula which I think was right for Canada in 1981 and is right for Canada today.

I want to emphasize the point about constitutional change. In British Columbia, it is the citizens who have the last word on amendments to our constitution. We have a statute; it's called the Constitutional Amendment Approval Act. The

preamble to that act says: " . . . it is essential that the Constitution of Canada reflect the values of British Columbians and

[ Page 7925 ]

that British Columbians have an opportunity to indicate their views on any proposed constitutional amendment." Then

section 1 of the act goes on to say: "The government must not introduce a motion for a resolution of [this assembly] authorizing an amendment to the Constitution of Canada unless a referendum has first been conducted . . . . "

The

preamble to the resolution before us reminds us of these important parts of the law of British Columbia. The

preamble helps in putting limits on what it is that we are doing here today. I am glad to see those words in the

preamble, because I do not think that this resolution sanctions constitutional change; nor do I think it gives the government of British Columbia a mandate to negotiate that change.

Now I want to say something about the three additional clauses that have been added to this resolution. On Friday of last week, when I was asked about them, I said that these clauses were . . . . I think I used the word "complications." Well, I've not changed my mind about that. Although I respect the Premier's statement that the Calgary framework is not a declaration, is not a code, is not an unamendable document, it sits there and gathers life and has some force of its own. One of its virtues, I think, is that it is not overly ambitious. It seeks to identify some basic principles that unite us.

If history has lessons, surely there is a lesson in the Charlottetown experience about the risks of a shopping-list approach to nation-building. Long lists of special-interest demands create too many opportunities for disagreement, and they obscure the task of identifying the areas where we do agree.

So now we have the three additional clauses that the Premier wants added to a resolution in support of the Charlottetown . . . of the Calgary framework or declaration. That was a Freudian slip; I hope I have no reason, ever, to look back to. When you add to the list, the question I ask is: "Who else will add?" How long will it be before every province has its list? How much and how many things will be on that list? How soon will it be before we pay too much attention to the list of special demands and lose sight of the agreement on the Calgary principles themselves?

Let's look for a moment at the principles that the Premier wishes to add. The Unity Panel did ask a number of questions of British Columbians in addition to the questions about the Calgary declaration, and it was right that they do so. I don't quarrel with that for a moment. But there was a wide range of those questions, a far wider range than the three points in the resolution that is before us. Questions were asked of British Columbians about immigration, education, social services, employment training. Questions were asked of British Columbians about a range of subjects, none of which appear in the resolution before us.

I want to say some things about the relationship between the Unity Panel report and the three principles which are added to the resolution, because there is nothing in the Unity Panel report which justifies the selection or choice of the three principles which have been added to the resolution. The Unity Panel was not asked, for example: "Please identify two or three or four additional principles. Please choose two or three or four additional principles which should be added to a resolution approving the Calgary declaration, if you think that is the appropriate way to go."

The British Columbians who were contacted by the Unity Panel were not asked. They did not say that their support for the Calgary declaration was conditional upon the support that they might have for other principles. I have heard no explanation yet that persuades or convinces me of the reason why these three principles were chosen as opposed to others for which there is support in the Unity Panel report -- support which is available to the government as it moves forward on the national unity front -- but which do not find themselves on the face of the resolution before us.

So the real question, I suppose, is: how can we justify the selection of the three principles which have been added but not some others? Well, it seems to me, Madam Speaker, that the list of three is more interesting for what is left out than for what is included, because one of the persistent themes of the Unity Panel report is the sense of alienation which people feel, the alienation that British Columbians feel from their governments, from their political institutions.

As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, 90 percent of the people surveyed by the Unity Panel believe that political institutions have to change to allow more public input into the decisions of government; 90 percent of the people surveyed by the Unity Panel believe that British Columbia needs a larger number of seats in the federal House of Commons to match its population size; 68 percent of the people surveyed believe that people who live outside Vancouver and Victoria tend to get ignored in provincial politics.

[3:30]

If you put the poll results to one side and ask the people who were part of the public hearing process, who looked at the written submissions that came in and paid attention to the record of phone calls that were made, a persistent theme throughout the process was the need for electoral reform, the need for more representation -- in short, the need for a system of government that works better for British Columbians. Yet none of this appears in the Premier's list of additional clauses.

Frankly, the message here is not so subtle. This government is not interested in how we are governed. After all, this is a Premier who, in the two years since he has taken office, has taken not one step to make government more accountable or more representative. People want governments to change the way they work, to do the public's business in public rather than behind closed doors, to hide less and open up more, to respond to the initiatives of citizens rather than the ideas of bureaucrats.

What has this government done? Well, they constituted a Unity Panel. But you know what, hon. Speaker? When the government in Alberta decided to consult with British Columbians about the Calgary declaration, it did so on the signatures of all three leaders of the political parties of Alberta. In this province, the Premier designed the Unity Panel process himself. We asked to have input in it; we were not given that opportunity. I will be the first to congratulate the Unity Panel for having, despite the obstacles that faced it, achieved the goals of openness, accountability and independence.

But it was the Premier's panel; there's no mistaking that. We were there ultimately to do the Premier's business. Now, it's a step in the right direction that we were there at all; I'm glad of that. But there are many more steps that need to be taken before government in British Columbia is truly open, truly accountable and truly more respectful of the views of British Columbians.

What else has this government done to indicate its respect for the institutions of democracy in British Columbia? Well, through budget cuts and fee increases, it's working as hard as it possibly can to deny citizens public access to government information, undermining the Freedom of Information Act. When someone dares to release an internal government report which shows the Crown Lands ministry in chaos, do we get: "Let's fix the problem"? No, we get: "Let's find the

[ Page 7926 ]

whistle-blower." The theme of this government is secrecy, not openness. Therefore when it comes to accountability we ask the same question: why is it that this government has not listened to the voices of British Columbians who spoke about those themes in the Unity Panel, and given voice to their concerns on the face of this resolution?

No other government in history has used special warrants as often as this government. Special warrants are a tool a government uses when it wants to spend money without public accountability. This is the government which enthusiastically deregisters political parties under the Election Act and enforces a gag law that is intended to deny people free speech during election campaigns. So even though British Columbians sent a strong message to the Unity Panel that they want change in the way government works, that message has been ignored by government. When I am asked if I trust this provincial government to represent the interests of British Columbians on the national stage, I say no.

This provincial government is good at whining, at megaphone politics, at walking away from negotiating tables. But it is not good at solving real problems. The last time I looked, after two years of bluster the Premier hadn't saved a single fish. When it comes to the hard work of protecting British Columbia's interests on issues like the delivery of immigration services, the government fails. When it comes to listening to the voices of British Columbians who want a government which connects with them rather than alienates them, this government is uninterested.

Some would congratulate the Premier for striking out on his own, for saying that he intends to speak up for British Columbia. Some who say that are also powerful advocates for popular democracy as the tool or basis for constitutional change. Well, let me say this to them: you can't have it both ways. You can't ask for popular democracy and then congratulate a Premier who ignores its results and goes his own way. You cannot on the one hand say that the voice of the people is all-important and then say that the real question is whether the Premier can stand up to the Prime Minister of Canada.

If the question is, "Do we trust the people or do we trust this Premier?" then my answer is that I choose to trust the people. But for all of that . . . . I said there would be some cautionary notes, and I think it's important that those cautionary notes be sounded.

I began by saying that there is some good in this declaration. Frankly, I think the declaration, framework, seven principles or whatever we choose to call it is the heart of the resolution. So I put my concerns above the political agenda of the Premier and into that larger context.

On that basis -- recognizing that the constructive challenge that faces all of us is to advance the interests of British Columbia within a framework that contains a basic set of values that are shared by all Canadians -- I think it's fair to say that the additional clauses are an unhelpful distraction but not, in the final analysis, determinative. I said I had doubts and reservations; I have doubts and reservations.

Interjection.

G. Plant: I hear the minister saying he has them too. Well, it's right that we all move cautiously; it's right that we step carefully; it's right that we not overstate the importance of the moment. If we raise our expectations too high, then we will hurt the more for failing. I don't think this is the time, in the history of British Columbia, for grand failures. It is perhaps the time for modest successes, so let's work hard to make some of those.

E. Walsh: I am pleased to rise and speak in support of the motion and the resolution. I'm also especially pleased that I was one of the members that sat on the Unity Panel. This Unity Panel was especially to hear from British Columbians their concerns, their views, their suggestions and their recommendations, not only with regard to the Calgary declaration but, more specifically and personally, with regard to how they feel about Canadian unity.

I just want to say right at the outset that it's a little bit disturbing when I hear an eloquent speech such as the one given by the member across the way . . . . To hear the political rhetoric included in that speech, especially on Canadian unity . . . . I think that is something that people we spoke to hoped wouldn't happen. The message -- that Canadian unity is of the utmost importance to the people of British Columbia -- has not been ignored by this government.

I thought what I would do today is speak a little bit more on what we as a panel heard from the people in British Columbia. To begin with, I want to speak about the promise that the Premier did make, and that was that we would consult with the people of British Columbia on the Calgary framework for a discussion on Canadian unity. We did just exactly that. Never before has there been any government that has been as open in a process as this government has been. Never before has there been as much consultation as what we have had in this province.

Our Premier also stated that these talks were not about changing the constitution, and that in fact is not what it is going to be about. We as a panel were to go out and listen to what British Columbians had to say. That was the direction we were given. That's what we wanted to do, and I'm proud to say that, yes, that is what we did. We heard from seniors, veterans, students, youth, francophones, aboriginal peoples, labour and businesses. If this wasn't reaching out to the public, to the people of British Columbia -- and it was only a very small number of people that we spoke to -- then I really don't know what it was.

All the people we spoke to and all the people who came and made submissions spoke to us with a depth of passion, with a depth of emotion, that in fact our Premier this afternoon spoke to us about. Those depths of emotion and passion come from the love for our country, the love of our province and also from the love for our way of life. In that way, we wish to remain united.

We heard presenters say various things, and one of them was that they were tired of hearing about some of the issues that are out there in the province and in Canada. But by the same token, we also heard of the need to further educate Canadians on the history of Canada, Quebec, and our own provinces and our own people. We need to know more about the country we live in. We heard that some people feel that even bilingualism has driven a wedge between us. Yet we heard, too, that the languages that we have in Canada define our culture and who we are.

We heard concerns about aboriginal people, the residential schools and the need for signed treaties -- about their voices that need to be and must be heard. We heard about the feelings of alienation from Ottawa, the federal government, eastern Canada -- in fact, probably much like what we have here in the province of British Columbia, in the rural areas. It's not so different: the further away you are from Victoria, the further away you feel from those decision-makers. Concerns were also expressed that this is a vital process, but also that the hope that comes with this process won't be lost in a lot of rhetoric. Hon. Speaker, I truly hope that will not happen either.

[ Page 7927 ]

Youth attendance at these hearings was fairly minimal, which was even noted by the youth that came there. One youth felt that he and his friends may vote yes or they may vote no on whatever the question may be, not because of the information they are aware of or the education they have but because this is how their parents and their families will vote. So I hope the many visits we made to schools are going to be beneficial.

We heard much on equality of status -- on the words "equality," "distinct" and "unique." Though British Columbians agree that all Canadians are equal and that all provinces should have equality of status, there seemed to be a difference in definition and confusion as to exactly what these words mean -- differences in their points of view and differences in the changing times. We heard about the importance of culture and what culture means to so many people in all the different provinces of Canada. There were suggestions such as culture being a preparation for growth.

A very important point made in some of these submissions was that one of our major growth areas is people. It defines how we as Canadians express ourselves, and it also explains us to ourselves. Some people felt that the arts have failed to make their case to politicians.

There were ongoing discussions about hyphenated Canadians -- for example, German Canadians, Indo-Canadians, French Canadians. Some felt that perhaps this is working towards defeating that purpose towards which everybody was working so hard. Many people felt that being a Canadian was just that: being a Canadian. Others felt that hyphenated Canadians will exist as long as Canada exists.

Some of the veterans, in their submissions and in their presentations, also queried the direction of Canada right now and the lack of knowledge about what's really going on in all of Canada and the provinces -- whether or not the wars and the fights that they fought and that their colleagues and families died in were all going to be for naught. A veteran read a poem that he had written. Yet they were all very proud of their fight to keep this country a united country.

[3:45]

We heard people say that Canada is a country that is home to many immigrants. This is a good country. It's a changing country. People come here to live because it is the best country in the world to live in. The Calgary declaration says that this country matters. It says that this country is important and that the rights of all people must be respected.

Some people spoke about what they saw as strengths and weaknesses. Some of what they felt were weaknesses were parochialism, a sense of disparity, selfishness, the alienation of politicians, temperamental differences and lack of knowledge. This is just to name a few. Some of the strengths that were mentioned were a high level of tolerance; compassion; long-term momentum; political, economic and social stability; and humour and caring in our country. These are just to name a few.

Some concerns were expressed about the apparent lack of knowledge of Canadians across Canada. Even so, the longer we met, the more hearings we had, the more conversations we had and the more submissions that were produced . . . . They stated clearly that there were impacts from the lack of knowledge about the MAI, the multilateral agreement on investment, and NAFTA.

The concerns were about what these agreements actually mean to the people of British Columbia and to the people of Canada -- what the need to sell resources, products, at a cheaper cost to the international markets means to the provinces, to our environment and to our jobs. With projects like the Island Highway project, the jobs and timber accord or any project where we could further economic stability to protect our people and our communities -- whether these would be at risk . . . . Would many of our laws even be deemed illegal?

That intrusion in our laws and resources from outside bodies would literally tear at the very fabric that our national unity is made of.

We heard many other issues. As you would expect, in the 700 or so submissions that we received and in the oral presentations, we heard issues on health care. Who should be setting national standards? Should it be the federal government or the provincial government, or should it be together? Whoever sets these standards, British Columbians have clearly stated that what they do not want is another layer of highly formalized bureaucracy. They have also said that they want greater responsibility as a province for setting these standards, along with the federal government in partnership.

British Columbians spoke about the equalization payments and funding to provinces. They spoke about the support equalization payments to the poor provinces as a necessity, but they also feel that funding for health care, education and social programs should receive the same level of federal funding per person -- what we've also heard earlier today.

Throughout the hearings, there was much anxiety and concern expressed by so many of the presenters who came out. I don't know that you can in fact not display anxiety and concern when you speak of something so passionately; but at the same time that they displayed these anxieties and concerns, they also displayed their pride in our country and in ourselves as Canadians. I believe that is so very fundamental to us as Canadians: who we are and what we believe in.

People feel that the Calgary declaration is a very sensible document, that it's a document that should be at the top of the agenda for every federal and political party in Canada -- not just one party and not just federal, but for every federal and provincial party. We need to work together to achieve a common future for everyone in Canada.

British Columbians said that the Calgary declaration was the first step, a very significant and important step, in how we as provinces will be addressing Canadian unity. We heard thanks to the Premier and to the B.C. government for reaching out so that citizens could be heard. We heard many, many diverse opinions, views and observations. We heard the need to recognize our diversity, the uniqueness of Quebec society, and also the need for greater responsibility, a stronger voice for British Columbians in areas that specifically concern them, as we've heard earlier too -- like the fisheries.

We've heard that where British Columbians felt that the seven principles were in fact the right step, they also felt they needed to be expanded upon, and that is where the other issues that we spoke of earlier come in. British Columbians felt that it could go further, and they said we cannot and must not forget to stand together if we are to survive economically and sociologically as a whole. British Columbians are passionately committed to a united Canada.

Much as in the province of British Columbia, geography does in fact separate all of us throughout Canada, and this geography is sometimes a challenge. But it's not the only challenge. British Columbians, no matter where we are in the country, feel that we share a common vision and that our leaders need to fight for the future of our provinces, our country and all of our people.

Hon. Speaker, I know that through the Calgary declaration and the three principles that have been added on, our

[ Page 7928 ]

leader -- the Premier in the province of British Columbia -- is fighting for our province and for our country. National standards for health care, the support that the federal government's equalization program . . . . The importance of that program, but also the importance of receiving the same level of federal funding per person and assuming the greater responsibility in areas for our provinces . . . . These are important points. These are points that were in fact brought to the committee's attention and were spoken about. I stand by those concerns and those points that British Columbians brought forward to our attention.

Before I finish, I would like to say that I hope that everyone in this House stands in support of this resolution. It is a good resolution; it is a fine resolution. I know it's a resolution that will ensure that we are able to go into the next millennium as a united country, as a country that is together. It is a message from British Columbians to Canada. That message is very clearly that we will "stand on guard for thee."

[4:00]

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings .]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply; we're debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. And in this House, I call Committee of Supply B. For the information of members, we're debating the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION,

TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

(continued)

On vote 11: minister's office, $464,000 (continued).

G. Plant: I have a question or two of the minister in his capacity as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. I can indicate that I expect there may be some questions around B.C. Buildings Corporation, following which there will be some questions on the Crown corporations secretariat.

The House just passed a motion. The motion endorses the seven principles which are sometimes called the Calgary framework or the Calgary declaration, as well as giving expression to a number of other principles. Not to put the point too cutely, but having just been given this new toy, what does the minister intend to do with it?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I will not repeat in full detail the statement I made in the context of that debate. But just to summarize, I think it's very important that we show Canadians and British Columbians that the Calgary framework and the principles contained within it, which have now been endorsed through this resolution, are not simply principles that can now be stored away to collect dust. They are principles that will animate the work we do in terms of the intergovernmental discussions that are going on across the country.

In that regard, the three additional principles that British Columbians recommended to us and that were incorporated point, I think, in the direction of what exactly we now do.

In the context, for example, of how we give effect to the principles of equality within Calgary, I think that one important way we do that is in the context of discussions that Finance ministers are having around equalization and funding formulas with respect to the CHST and other federal transfers. I expect that B.C. will strengthen its arguments in favour of there being a more principled approach to funding based upon the principles of equality that are found in Calgary and amplified by the additional principles that British Columbians added, arguing that we indeed support a renewed equalization program.

That program is up for review, as the member is probably aware. We want to see it continued; we're prepared to consider measures that may strengthen it in some respects. But we expect the principle of equality to also be respected outside of that program to ensure that British Columbians, along with other Canadians, receive equal recognition when it comes to funding for other programs, be they health care, social services or education.

So within the context of Finance ministers' discussions and within the context of my discussions as Intergovernmental Relations minister with my counterpart, I will be urging very strongly that we move on those items that are currently on the agenda -- not just because they are on the agenda, but because they are important to give meaning to Calgary and to the principles contained within it.

With respect to cooperation, the Calgary framework talks about more cooperation between the federal government and the provinces. We are having discussions on a social framework right now -- again, I think the member is aware of this -- around how we come up with a new social framework around medicare, education and social programs. Again, I will be arguing strenuously within those federal-provincial discussions that we must come up with that framework in a way that energizes the principles of both cooperation and equality.

Again, we can derive further help from the support given by British Columbians for a national set of standards in health care and the expectation of British Columbians that the provinces will be more fully involved in articulating those national standards on health care, as well as in pressing the federal government to ensure that there is adequate funding for such a national program -- in particular, not to direct new funding into new program areas but to put it into those base funding programs.

Similarly, we will be urging, both bilaterally with the federal government and in conjunction with other provinces, that a good way to respect equality and respect the principle of cooperation which is found within Calgary in a way that allows for diversity -- another important principle in Calgary -- is through some measure of greater decentralization in key areas like labour market training.

We're into a second round of discussions with the federal government to now take the next step around labour market training within this province to give the province a greater direct say over the administration of labour market training programs. We would like to see further progress made with respect to the fisheries. Other provinces have their issues. In all of these areas, what I would like to see is for us to now give meaning to Calgary in very concrete and practical ways.

The only thing I'd say by way of conclusion -- again, reiterating my comments yesterday, hon. Chair -- is that I think B.C. is uniquely positioned to help give Calgary meaning in these areas, because our position is not a position that sits at the very periphery of this discussion. It is a position that sits very much in the centre of this discussion. We support a strong federal presence and role with respect to protecting national standards and making sure that that serves as a force for Canadian unity on the one hand, but we also support more decentralization on the other. We support equalization on the one hand, but on the other hand, we support a greater recog-

[ Page 7929 ]

nition of the need to treat other provinces, like B.C., Ontario and Alberta, with greater equality. In some respects, we share a lot of the sense of alienation that many in Quebec feel, but we do so without believing that separation should be considered and pursued as an option.

We have an opportunity, if the federal government will listen to British Columbians, to act as a bridge between competing visions within the country and to energize these principles in practical ways. That's what I think will be the strategy that's most likely to produce success. If we do that, and if the federal government were to participate rather than seek to play off areas of the country against each other, then I think we could construct a new model for cooperative federalism that would serve us well as we enter a new millennium -- much as the old model of cooperative federalism served Canada well in the sixties but is clearly no longer serving us well today.

G. Plant: That's what I get for asking an open-ended question.

The minister's answer speaks of the progress towards the implementation of what I suppose might be called administrative reforms and public policy developments that involve both levels of government -- in a way, taking the principles out for a walk and applying them in the contexts in which they will arise, which includes the ongoing business of intergovernmental relations around issues like equalization, as well as policy initiatives in terms of the social framework. I think that's a logical thing to do with a set of principles.

In fact, it's probably good public policy to ensure that there are some principles that lie behind the province's positions with respect to issues like fisheries, social policy and so on.

Let me say this: it seems to me that there is a potential, a possibility, for that to be a modest, successful, constructive, concrete way of moving forward to implement principles by application, if you will. There may also be initiatives among the Premiers to do something else. I don't know. I suppose one scenario would be that if all of the provinces except Quebec and all of the territorial assemblies pass resolutions roughly similar to that which we passed here, then that will be taken as a mandate to move into a new round of constitutional talks.

On both sides of the House, comments have been expressed about whether or not that would be a good thing. I guess my thoroughly careful question in that context is: are there currently any plans in that regard? Or is the minister saying, in effect, that for now the operating strategy is to implement the principles in the other contexts he has referred to?

Hon. A. Petter: I very much like the metaphor that the member has used about taking the principles for a walk. It is my belief and the belief of this government that we have talked the talk on principles to the point of exhaustion for ourselves and for British Columbians. The constitutional discussions of the past tended to be about abstract principles. I think what British Columbians and Canadians want to see us do is start taking some principles that we can agree upon, start taking them for that walk and start showing Canadians that they mean something.

I think there is a sense of fatigue around the talk and that some walking would be seen as a very productive step. Beyond that, there is a question in this country about what the principles that energize this country are. We've seen an erosion of commitment to principles. In the last ten years we've seen an erosion of a commitment to equality in terms of federal funding of provinces. That has a very alienating effect. British Columbians don't like the fact that they are given 94 cents of every dollar that goes to other provinces for social programs, on a per-capita basis.

It is part of the sense of alienation we feel. So it's not just taking the principles for a walk; it's actually making sure that the principles are agreed to in more than form -- agreed to in substance.

As for going into another constitutional round, certainly at this stage that is something that I think the Premier indicated in his remarks earlier that we are not keen to do. We have said very explicitly, in fact, that that is not what we believe would be a constructive course. It would be about more talk, more argument and more abstraction, when what Canadians and British Columbians really want is to see some concrete action. So walking the walk is something that I think is very important and something that we want to concentrate upon.

[4:15]

G. Plant: Partly in response to that and, I guess, out of a desire to encourage a continued commitment to the process of public consultation that I think was realized -- perhaps imperfectly, but nonetheless far more than has traditionally been the case -- in the Calgary process . . . . I heard the minister speak a few minutes ago about what I think of as almost a tension between a couple of the sets of principles that are encompassed within the resolution as a whole. That is on the one hand, the aspiration or the desire or the commitment to national standards in some areas and yet, on the other hand, a commitment which is equally powerful to decentralization in other contexts.

The challenge, it seems to me, is to recognize that it's not always going to be easy to identify the context that we're in: whether we're in a context in which the legitimate demand is for national standards or a context in which the better demand is for decentralization -- or perhaps both working together.

I'm not sure -- and this is not unusual when you have a statement of principles or a discussion about principles -- that we have, by expressing some commitment to the principles that were talked about today, provided perfect answers to all the challenges that are going to face the minister when he decides whether or not education, for example, is something that there needs to be national standards around or greater provincial autonomy over.

I don't think that today is the time to sort out the tension. What I would like to say, though, is that one aspect of the federal-provincial process that doesn't work very well is first ministers' conferences and dialogues, where almost all that happens happens behind closed doors. I would like to encourage the minister to take with him -- and for the government to take into the discussions that they're going to have -- a recognition that if these discussions are to be informed by principles, as they should be, they will be better discussions if the public is brought in sooner rather than later.

There was, for example, public consultation conducted by the Attorney General in his capacity as Minister Responsible for Immigration, in the period leading up to the agreement which was signed earlier this week. The organizations in British Columbia that deliver immigrant settlement services were, I think, generally consulted. There's a need to ensure that that continues to happen in this context. As I say, rather than sort out the interesting questions that will arise, I want to identify them and encourage the minister to involve not just the public but, frankly, this Legislature in the discussion, the debate and the resolution of those principles.

Hon. A. Petter: I fully agree with the member that there are times when the principles, in their application, will raise

[ Page 7930 ]

questions. We need to make sure that we answer those in a way that is respectful of citizens and that we go back and seek guidance from citizens and from the Legislature.

Having said that, let me say that one of the frustrations that provinces have had of late is that even in areas which are not contentious -- at least amongst the provinces and their citizens -- the federal government seems to have not been willing to work with provinces. We'll see the test of this, I suppose, in the social framework discussions. But there's been a propensity on the part of the federal government, I think, to play off the poorer provinces against the so-called richer provinces and Quebec against the rest of the country, all in the name of trying to forge national unity.

We do have this syndrome in Canada where there are almost three Canadas, and if we allow that to be exploited by the federal government, then it becomes a reality. It's the have-not provinces and the so-called have provinces and Quebec. You can pick any issue, whether it's equalization or equal per-capita funding, and the federal government will often respond by playing off one region against the other.

One challenge that I think we have and that we can meet . . . . The provinces, in my mind, are more united on most of these issues than they have been in the last ten years. If we can get the federal government to begin to take seriously the provinces' positions and to resist the propensity to play off provinces against each other, then we can do a considerable amount of work that isn't contentious and that simply takes us down the road to applying some of these principles -- such as a more collaborative framework on national health standards, for example.

Then we will confront the issues that the member is talking about: issues where there are choices to be made on which we don't have clear guidance. At that point, I fully agree that we should come back and seek reference from our constituents, from the Legislature and from others. Certainly it will be my intention to do so.

G. Plant: On one particular area, the discussions around social framework, I had the assistance of a briefing from the minister's staff. Is there a timetable with goals, expectations, targets, deliverables -- those kinds of things? Or is this essentially moving forward, like Topsy? This is, I understand, an issue where the minister is, among his provincial colleagues, attempting to take a leadership role. I'm interested in the organizational context within which that's happening.

Hon. A. Petter: The goal has been to have a draft framework to take forward for the benefit of the Premiers, who, I believe, are meeting in August. So the goal has been to have some draft document together by July. Whether we can meet that goal -- whether the draft document will be complete -- is still, I think, a bit of an open question. Certainly we are trying to have something in the form of a draft framework document ready within that time frame.

G. Plant: May I just ask which governments -- provincial, territorial or federal -- are participating in the discussions? Is everyone playing along at this point, or are some people not part . . . ?

Hon. A. Petter: All provinces and territories and the federal government are participating. At one point, the province of Quebec was participating simply through observers, but more recently -- at the last meeting -- the province of Quebec has had ministerial representation, and it seems that it will be continuing that representation. One can never be sure, but that seems to be the case.

C. Hansen: I'd like to ask the minister where the B.C. government is at this time in terms of the Agreement on Internal Trade.

Hon. A. Petter: I guess I'd encourage the member to raise that issue with the Minister of Employment and Investment. I have some very passing familiarity, but that matter falls under the Minister of Employment and Investment's responsibility, much as the immigration agreement falls under the direct responsibility of the Attorney General.

C. Hansen: I was half expecting that answer, but I thought I should ask that at this point anyway.

Could the minister tell us if there are ongoing discussions at the interprovincial level, in terms of first ministers' meetings, on the Agreement on Internal Trade at this time? Or, again, is that something I should direct to the Minister of Employment and Investment?

Hon. A. Petter: Certainly matters of internal trade come up from time to time in Western Premiers' meetings, in Premiers' meetings and in first ministers' meetings. I frankly don't know whether it will be on the agenda of either the Western Premiers' Conference in July, which is the next such event coming up, or the Premiers' meeting in August. It wouldn't be unusual for it to come up -- probably in the nature of a status report from, in our case, the Minister of Employment and Investment.

G. Plant: Those are the questions I had on intergovernmental relations.

The other area I want to pursue with the minister relates to his responsibilities in respect of information services within government. I'll wait a moment to ask my question. My question is fairly simple. There has been some publicity lately around funding within government ministries for the services which ministries have to provide in order to respond to FOI requests. Each ministry has some FTE component and some budgetary component devoted to responding to FOI requests that are made of the ministries in their capacity as public bodies. I could probably leave this as a question that . . . .

If the minister is willing to do it this way, I'd be happy to go along with it. Rather than ask each of the ministers, during the estimates debate, for the particular budget numbers for their ministries, is it possible to place a request of this minister to have him or his staff provide me with the budget numbers for each of the ministries? Then we'll have the numbers, and we can argue somewhere else about the political significance of them.

Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to try to aggregate those numbers for the member and provide them to him. Let me just provide a little general context, which I hope won't prolong the debate but will at least provide some context for the member in assessing those numbers and in any other concerns he may have. As part of our general program reviews of government last year, there was some reduction in the central functions of government with respect to information. Some cuts were made as part of the other cuts that took place in last year's budget to protect money for health care and education and to transfer it over.

This year the program reviews that were undertaken as part of the preparation for this year's budget focused on the freedom-of-information capacity of ministries. As part of the general program reviews that have really been taking place

[ Page 7931 ]

through the last two budgets, this item was reached in this year's budget. There is no particular significance to it other than the fact that we started with the central functions and then moved to the ministerial ones.

As the member is aware, the scope of the overall cut is about $2 million in salary votes. It is about 10 percent of the total cross-government allocation in this year's budget for FOI. However, it's a higher proportion of the ministry salary votes, and that varies from ministry to ministry. What I want to say is this: the assumption is that with this reduced amount, ministries will be able to meet all of the legal requirements within the time frames specified under the legislation in order to comply with FOI. That's the working assumption.

Should it be the case that particular ministries have difficulty, then the expectation is that ministries will have to find it within their budgets to reallocate. I would be happy to provide the member with a briefing in which more detail is given and also some of the ways in which we think that ministries can still meet those requirements with these reduced resources through, for example, releasing information more regularly so it doesn't have to be FOI'ed.

[4:30]

What I want to say to the member is yes, this was done. It was done based upon the expectation that there were more efficient ways -- and I've given as one example the pre-release of information -- in which ministries could meet expectations with respect to FOI through some cuts that are relatively small in relation to the total budget, but somewhat larger in relation to their staff budgets. If for some reason ministries are not capable, then they will still have to meet the requirements of the act. What they will have to do, however, is find the resources elsewhere in their budgets and transfer them.

That's the operating assumption. I'd be happy to give the member both the detailed information he seeks and a larger briefing on the vision that informs some of these decisions as to how ministries can better meet their requirements, even with some reduced resources, without in any way abrogating the expectations of the public as to receiving the services they expect under the act.

G. Plant: I hope to have the opportunity to take the minister up on his offer.

Let me attempt to pursue two points that arise out of what he just said. The minister used the $2 million figure in relation to staff cuts or costs in ministerial budgets. I am told that there is also the expectation of about a million dollars in additional fee revenue. So there are two components to the decision that has been made: one is that there will be cuts on the order of $2 million, and the other is that there is an expectation that government, on a ministry-by-ministry basis, will have to raise an additional million dollars or thereabouts by way of fees. Is that a fairly accurate statement?

Hon. A. Petter: I think it's accurate to the extent that right now, by way of fees, government collects an infinitesimally small amount of the overall costs. At one point I calculated that it's some fraction of 1 percent of the total cost of the FOI system. I think there has been a sentiment that there should be more room for cost recovery. No decision has yet been taken by cabinet; I think we are looking at options. The figure of a million dollars has certainly been looked at as an objective. It would be a fee recovery in the nature of 5 percent of the total costs, and it doesn't seem unreasonable.

But cabinet has not yet decided to proceed or how to proceed in that regard because, frankly, we want to be careful that it does not in any way act as a barrier, particularly to individuals who do not have resources. The great bulk of requests is by individuals with respect to their personal information. As well, we want to make sure that where fees do apply, while they do recover and discourage the sort of unnecessary broad requests that pose huge costs, they do not act as a barrier to legitimate inquiries for information by anyone -- the opposition, the press or anyone else.

So we're testing whether the million-dollar figure is achievable, and we have not yet made that decision. Even if we went for something of that nature, I would just reinforce that it would be less than 5 percent of the total cost.

G. Plant: I appreciate the response. The second point that arose that I wanted to pursue has to do with how big the number is, I suppose. There are two numbers that I hear used in the context of how much FOI is costing government. One is the $20 million to $21 million figure, which, actually, members of the statutory review committee heard from the person who was the deputy minister at the time. If we're looking at a million-dollar figure as being the number that the government at this point might like to try to raise by way of fees, clearly that's about 5 percent. So I understand that.

But there's also a figure, something on the order of $4 million to $6 million, which I'm told is the aggregate cost, ministry by ministry, of actually dealing with FOI requests. So the question is: what is the difference between the $4 million to $6 million figure and the $21 million figure? I'm speaking in broad conceptual terms rather than asking for a detailed breakdown.

Hon. A. Petter: In fact, I read a bit of the transcript of the debate in which the member asked the former deputy minister and chief information officer this very question. I don't quite recall it, but as I recall, the answer was something like: "I would be included in the $20 million, but the person next to me wouldn't" -- that kind of thing. Basically, it comes down to this: the actual budgeted salary votes specifically targeted to FOI in the ministries is in the range of $5 million.

But the actual process of human resources and time that's required within ministries to service those requests obviously engages many more people than the direct FOI personnel. Other staff involved in the collection of the information, in doing the due diligence, in preparing the information for release -- all of that . . . . If you were to include all of that -- not the additional people the deputy minister brought along with him to the briefing, but the core people who get involved -- I think that the cost, conservatively, is about $14 million within ministries.

Then if you add the costs of the central information functions of government, that brings it close to the $20 million figure. So I think that helps to explain the different numbers that one hears -- as best as I understand the different apportionment of those costs.

G. Plant: The number doesn't include, for example, the cost of operating the office of the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: The $20 million-plus figure would include the office of the privacy commissioner, as well, as a cost of government.

G. Plant: The central agency that the minister referred to a moment ago as being another component of that is the agency that he is the minister responsible for, which has some acronym like ITAO, or whatever it is. It changes often, too

[ Page 7932 ]

often for me to keep up with it. But it is the agency through which government attempts to manage and coordinate the way in which it responds to its obligations under the act. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: That's correct.

G. Plant: So the third component, which I think is the $14 million component, if I understand the explanation correctly, is the imputed value of the time spent by ministry employees who have to help with responses to FOI requests. For example, if there is a request made to the Ministry of Forests for the disclosure of documents relating to the issuance of a cutting permit, there is somebody in the Ministry of Forests who is an FTE dedicated to FOI business.

But that person probably has to get on the phone or go down the hall or write a letter or send a memo to the district forests office and say: "There is a request for this cutting permit file." The person on the other end of the phone, who is probably just an employee in a regional forestry office somewhere, has to spend ten minutes or half an hour or an hour or a day, or whatever it is, in order to ensure that the file is properly made available. I take it that this other number, this $14 million, is the attempt to assign some kind of value to the time spent by those people. Is that right?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I think that this ministry, the Information, Science and Technology Agency, and Treasury Board, as part of program review and the like, have tried as best they can to track the costs of processing FOI requests. The member is correct that when you track those costs, they don't include the personnel who are specifically dedicated to FOI alone. They include a whole range of other activities: field offices . . . . The due diligence then has to be shown, communications functions -- a whole range of activities.

Conservatively, those additional activities, which consume time and resources within those ministries, bring the costs up to considerably more than the direct budgeted salaries. That's where the number goes beyond the budgeted salary number of nearly $5 million to the $14 million: in the engagement of all those additional personnel and resources in order to process FOI requests and make sure that they are ready for release in a timely and appropriate way.

G. Plant: I believe those are all my questions in the area of freedom of information. I expect that the B.C. Buildings Corporation is up next.

R. Coleman: I would like to welcome the minister to the Crown corporation of BCBC, since for the last few years there has been a different minister.

I thought I'd start out with some closing comments from last year, and I'd like to take the corporation to its strategic plan with a quick discussion about its annual report and a couple of questions relative to some specific projects that some of my colleagues might have.

First of all, I'd like to reiterate that this company has been moving into an expanded role, and that expanded role is a welcome expanded role for government, so that it can provide the services to its clients that other client groups within the province require. BCBC is a highly professional organization that is extremely well run and provides a very good service to the province. I would like to reiterate to the people watching that this corporation and the services they provide with regard to what they put on the Internet, and the other services they provide to this province, are very valuable to us.

Their tendering processes and their documentation would be an asset to any government agency, should they choose to copy them and use them.

I would also like to say that corporate relations and management within this corporation are very strong. I'm very impressed with BCBC, and I think we should be thankful that this Crown corporation is functioning in the manner that it does and that it provides the services to the people of the province that it does. For the minister, I have now reviewed BCBC for the third year, and I have to admit that those words stand as true today as they did three years ago. This is a very well run corporation.

I would like to now go into a discussion for a few minutes with regards to where the corporation was last year and where it is today. It's more as an exercise . . . . I know that the first year we did estimates on BCBC, we went three hours. The second time we did BCBC, we went about 45 minutes. If I had my druthers, I could have probably told you, "It's a great corporation; don't mess with it," and we could have been out of here in five minutes. However, there are some questions that we should touch base on.

[4:45]

The corporation is now into its second strategic plan, which ends in 1999, which means that we are probably about 24 months into the plan or somewhere thereabouts. I would like to ask a couple of questions with regard to its objectives and how it's making out. In the plan, they were trying to achieve a $30 million reduction in the cost of government accommodation. In the first year the corporation exceeded the goal of $20.9 million by almost a million dollars. It was identified in the annual report, and I think I'm pretty close on that.

In the second year of the strategic plan, they were to try to achieve an additional $8 million in savings to government. I'm just wondering how they made out with that $8 million in the second phase of the strategic plan.

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, let me say that I very much appreciate the member's comments in support of the work done by the corporation. I share his view. This is a very dynamic and successful corporation, and it's a good example of a public corporation serving the public interest but doing so in ways that are creative and efficient and that work with and draw upon the experience of the private sector.

I'd also like to make note of some of the support I have in answering these questions today. I am accompanied by Dennis Truss, who is president of the corporation; Lak Parmar, who is the vice-president of finance; and Denis Racine, who is the director of corporate communications. Because I omitted to note who was here on earlier questions with respect to freedom of information, I should also note that Stuart Culbertson, deputy minister for ISTA and chief information officer for the government, was also assisting me on that particular part of the estimates.

The short answer to the member's question is that in 1996-97 the savings realized were $21.7 million; and in 1997-98 an additional $13.7 million was saved. So the cumulative total of savings, if you take it from the base we started from, is $35.4 million.

R. Coleman: The corporation, with the support of its customers, was setting up some guidelines with regard to the number of square metres per person -- to reduce it from 23.5 metres to 19.5 metres per person as far as occupancy is concerned. Some of that was for new clientele, but it was also to try and reduce it within the ministry. I'm wondering how successful you have been on that.

[ Page 7933 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Work in this regard has been progressing very well. I can speak a little bit from my own experience with the corporation prior to taking on this responsibility, based on two moves in Victoria, one to the Selkirk Building and the other to St. Ann's. In both cases, ministries that were previously in very unsatisfactory quarters and were occupying larger space requirements moved into new structures that in fact saved them costs, while providing them with better, more functional facilities, and resulted in less per-square-metre usage than previously.

So the short answer, again, is that yes, we are moving to achieve a 20-square-metres-per-person ratio in new projects. In the last year, I believe the creation or provision of new facilities that accord with those lower per-person space requirements contributed to the savings which I referred to earlier, in the range of $2.7 million.

R. Coleman: The corporation is also taking measures to ensure that it is recognized as a leader in integrated workplace strategies. Now, the interesting side of this is that over the three-year horizon of the strategic plan, these workplace strategies were to contribute about $3 million, or 10 percent of the $30 million, in space saving. There are two questions -- there's a double-barrelled question here. Firstly, we've already gone over the objective of the $30 million in savings.

Have we realigned our objectives to where we're going to be at the end of the three years as to the total savings we're now shooting for? And how are we making out with 10 percent of the $30 million savings being attributed to the integrate