1998/99 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 15, Number 13

[ Page 12893 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. J. Kwan: It is with pleasure that I introduce Mayor Frank Leonard, who is president of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. He's here today with other executive members, and I understand that the various MLAs will be introducing their local councillors and mayors as well. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Clark: I have two sets of introductions to make. Visiting from my constituency are Don and Viviane Mueller and Bill and Marcia Gordon. They last came to Victoria last year and found the normal debates not as interesting as they might have, so they came back this time for question period, they tell me. I hope the House will make them welcome.

We also have with us today the parents of Rishi Sharma, who works for the Liberal caucus. Surinder Sharma is the past president and a longtime volunteer for the Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria and currently president of the Vishva Hindu Parishad of Canada, and his wife Krishna Sharma is also a member of and longtime volunteer for the Inter-Cultural Association, and an executive member of the association. I hope the House will also make them very welcome today.

S. Orcherton: I just had the good fortune to meet a number of new folks who are residing in Victoria-Hillside. I didn't have the opportunity to make the formal acquaintance of them all, but I'd like to advise the House that we have a number of people here as refugees from Kosovo, who are now residing in the constituency of Victoria-Hillside. I'd ask the House to make them very welcome not only to these chambers but to British Columbia and, indeed, to Canada.

Hon. I. Waddell: A part of the cement that holds this great country together is our national broadcaster, the CBC, which we believe should reflect the regions of this country to the other regions and to all Canadians and should be well funded to do that. Accordingly, we've intervened with the CRTC and made that point in Ottawa. I'm very pleased today to have in the gallery Ms. Rae Hull, the regional director of television, CBC British Columbia. I'd ask the House to welcome her.

T. Nebbeling: On behalf of the B.C. Liberal caucus, I'd like to welcome Mayor Frank Leonard, president of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. I would also like to welcome to the House the rest of the executive: Councillor Pearl Myhres from Zeballos, Director Roxanna Mandryk from Comox-Strathcona, Chair George Holme from the Nanaimo regional district, Councillor Stan Dixon from Sechelt, Mayor Russ Hellberg from Port Hardy, and last but certainly not least, John Crook from Langford. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

E. Gillespie: It is my pleasure to add my welcome to the previous member's welcome to Director Roxanna Mandryk, who is visiting us from the Comox-Strathcona regional district as a member of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities executive. Roxanna was first elected in 1996, and she represents a very diverse constituency -- two islands, as well as a rural area on Vancouver Island. I have seen her work; she's a tireless worker on behalf of her constituents. I would ask all members to welcome her to this House.

P. Nettleton: I'm delighted today to introduce to the House a number of constituents all the way from Vanderhoof, just north of Prince George: Kevin and Gloria Griffith, their two children, Clarissa and Kylee, and a friend, Murray Barch. Please join me in giving a warm Victoria welcome to these folks from Vanderhoof.

G. Robertson: I'd like to introduce today two constituents of mine who are members of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities executive: first of all, Councillor Pearl Myhres, who is the first vice-president; and His Worship Russ Hellberg, who is a director-at-large and also the mayor of Port Hardy. They both do outstanding work for rural coastal communities in British Columbia. I ask the members to please welcome them.

The Speaker: I recognize the very patient Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Northern Development.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, they're easily offended over there.

I'd like the House to welcome two friends of mine. Martin Negus is a very able teacher in the high school system in Prince Rupert, and Steve Boggis is a very good friend of mine who now lives in Nanaimo. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Sitting up behind the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities members are my friend Barb Barrett and her friend Edna. Will the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

STRATA PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Strata Property Amendment Act, 1999.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to introduce the Strata Property Amendment Act, which will amend the Strata Property Act. The Strata Property Act was passed by this Legislative Assembly in July of 1998 but is still to be proclaimed. It's a new comprehensive code for strata property development and governance in British Columbia. After consultation with the community, as was promised, the Strata Property Amendment Act will strengthen and clarify the scope and application

[ Page 12894 ]

of certain provisions in the existing Strata Property Act. The new legislation will ensure greater certainty and will actually better facilitate compliance.

Strata property ownership is an important source of housing in the province. There are almost 900,000 strata lots in British Columbia. There's great anticipation within the strata community for the new strata property legislation which will be brought into force. The proposed amendments are necessary before the Strata Property Act can be implemented.

Bill 67 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.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. D. Zirnhelt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1999.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that Bill 68 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Bill 68 amends the Forest Act to streamline operations for forest licensees and government. The bill also repeals obsolete provisions and corrects minor drafting errors. The streamlining amendments will reduce the cost of doing business and allow government decision-making to be more responsive. The repeal of obsolete provisions should improve the business climate by providing more certainty for licensees. The changes in this bill will contribute to government's commitment to reduce the cost of doing business and to increase government efficiency.

[1415]

Bill 68 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

RESULTS OF FRBC EXPENDITURES

C. Clark: After blowing $2 billion, FRBC now proposes to drain its rainy-day fund dry. Even the NDP member for Alberni has said: "I'm trying to put together how you can spend more money, create fewer jobs and do a heck of a lot less work." Now, I know it's Thursday, and NDP members get to get up and ask a question today. But just in case the member for Alberni doesn't get up and ask it, I'll put the question for him: how does the minister spend $2 billion, drain the rainy-day fund, and at the end only have thousands and thousands of job losses to show for it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I categorically deny that $2 billion has been blown. What would the opposition not have funded -- the $420 million for enhanced forestry and backlog . . . ? No, they wouldn't fund that. And they wouldn't have funded $282 million to repair the forest environment. It wouldn't have been done. They wouldn't have done that. The $313 million spent on inventory . . . . It wouldn't have been done by that side of the House. And there's more that they wouldn't have done.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: Well, if the minister doesn't need to ask me, he can ask his own members, ask his own NDP colleagues. Why doesn't he ask the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca? I know it's Thursday, and he will get an opportunity to ask his question later. But just in case he doesn't, I'll quote him. He says: "If you think we're critical or have some serious questions, wait till the auditor general and his gang get in there. They'll have a field day." Now, I know it is rumoured that this minister is on the fast track on his way out of cabinet, but before he goes, can he tell this House exactly what it is that his own colleagues are so very, very worried about?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We take criticism from anywhere it comes. Our MLAs . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . . would like more money spent in every one of their ridings, as would that side of the House. But they won't have the guts to ask for more. That side of the House would not have spent the $72 million over . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . . the last five years to develop forest recreation and tourism opportunities. That side of the House would not have spent $276 million for communities' and workers' support. They wouldn't have done that. Finally, the $125 million in research to grow better forests and better products would not have been forthcoming from that side. This side is prepared to stand behind the spending record of Forest Renewal. We're proud of it.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: The minister says: "Ask and ye shall receive." So who was it that asked for the FRBC shaving kit? I don't think it was any member on this side of the House. You know, even Lee Doney, the FRBC chief, has said today: "You get yourself in situations where, in retrospect, it wasn't the right thing to do. And I'm sure we have got stories like that in FRBC." Well, if Mr. Doney is correct and there are horror stories in FRBC, and if he has kept the minister informed -- and I don't want to pre-empt any further questioning along this line -- will the minister table today any documents, any reports and any information that he has that detail the horror stories in FRBC?

[ Page 12895 ]

[1420]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me assure that member that it wasn't me that asked for the shaving kits. We dealt with that last year.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're looking at the performance of Forest Renewal. We're quite prepared to stand behind the changes we've made to have a more focused corporation, where the companies who ask for it have more responsibility for delivery. If they have horror stories, perhaps you can ask them. I'm prepared to stand by our record and say that yes, there has been criticism of Forest Renewal, but yes, we have made steps to correct it.

I'm happy to say that in the business plan that we announced today, another $300 million is going to be spent to support workers and communities, to reinvest in the land base and to provide training and value-added product development -- $22 million that's been signed on to support the value-added industry in British Columbia. That side wouldn't have done any of that.

SUITABILITY OF PROPOSED FRBC EXPENDITURES

G. Abbott: On Tuesday the NDP released the latest instalment of their bailout proposal to the federal government. Certainly we were grateful for it being leaked, because it identifies a couple more things that the opposition wouldn't do with FRBC. For example, this so-called adjustment support proposal shows that the government wants to hire 15 "forest adjustment coordinators" at a cost of $110,000 each per year. Will the Minister of Forests tell this House and tell the thousands of unemployed forest workers and their families, who are struggling to pay their rent, how these forest adjustment co-ordinators, at $110,000 a pop, will help put people back to work in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We approached the federal government to see if they were interested in share-costing some programs to assist unemployed forest workers. We believe that there has to be accountability that goes along with that. Therefore there has to be some people who are there administering the programs in a responsible way so that we can provide an explanation to the workers, the communities and the taxpayers of British Columbia.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: This bailout proposal contains another suggestion, which we certainly would reject on this side of the House. It's $600,000 for "business counselling in areas such as restructuring of debt loads." This, I think, is a surprising suggestion from this NDP government, given that they have brought us the 1992 deficit reduction strategy, the 1995 debt management plan, the 1997 financial management plan, the 1998 revised financial management plan and, most recently, the 1999 five-year fiscal planning framework.

Will the Minister of Forests tell us why on earth any business -- any forest business in this province -- would take debt-restructuring advice from this government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The debt-restructuring assistance would come, really, from the forest business community and people experienced in that. When you offer it to small businesses that want to grow, then you obviously go to the people who are successful in the business and ask them to provide the advice. There are some very interesting and useful programs with respect to financing small businesses. We support the Community Futures programs, and we support a venture capital program -- all are targeted to assist companies that want to expand and restructure.

It's important that when they borrow money, they have to have advice. The value-added industry has told us, in case the opposite side doesn't know, that they want business support services, and we're prepared to provide that. That side wouldn't.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

BRITISH COLUMBIA'S JOB CREATION RECORD

E. Walsh: My question is for the Minister of Employment and Investment. Despite the fact that the official opposition that we see across the floor is now opposed to our support of companies that have been coming into the province and are committing to new investments and to new jobs, there was a time when Premier Frank McKenna of New Brunswick . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

E. Walsh: At that time, he was their hero -- even when the Premier of New Brunswick was in fact stealing jobs from British Columbia, using fairly blatant subsidies to do so.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. We need to hear the question.

E. Walsh: My question to the minister is: can the minister confirm that in the current New Brunswick election that that province is having right now, the job creation record is being compared to other provinces? Can he tell us where this province ranks, relative to the favourite province of the members opposite?

[1425]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, order!

Hon. M. Farnworth: Right now in Atlantic Canada, in New Brunswick, there is an election underway, and the provincial Liberal government is running on their record of job creation. They're saying their record of job creation is the best in Atlantic Canada. This is a Liberal government saying this, so they must be telling the truth -- because, as the opposition says, Liberals never lie. They never fudge; they always tell the truth. And you know what?

Interjections.

[ Page 12896 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Wait for it, wait for it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And hon. Speaker . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Minister, it's difficult to hear with all the noise in the room.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . the provincial Liberal government in New Brunswick say they have the best record in Atlantic Canada and the third-best record in Canada. Guess who the Liberal government is saying is best in the country over the last ten years in job creation. From 1988 to 1998 the province of British Columbia led this country. A Liberal government says it's so, hon. Speaker!

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members.

B.C. BUSINESS INCORPORATION RATE

J. Reid: Under this government the number of new business incorporations in B.C. dropped by 20 percent between 1994 and 1998. During this same period in Alberta, new business incorporations increased by a healthy 6 percent and, in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba, by 11 percent. Can the Small Business minister explain why, with all the talk of encouraging new business and small business, new businesses aren't starting in B.C.?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order in the chamber!

Hon. I. Waddell: I thought the member was going to ask me about bankruptcies, and I was going to compare Alberta to British Columbia.

But I want to talk about starting new businesses. New businesses are starting in British Columbia at a record rate. StatsCan said that from 1991 to 1998 we had the fastest growth in small business in the country -- 7 percent. Now, my friend gave the figures for the Liberal government in New Brunswick -- what they said about our job growth. That's StatsCan, the federal agency, saying that we're growing. We're growing in tourism. We're a pot of gold in tourism; we're booming ahead in tourism. We're growing in the film industry. We're growing in high-tech. We're creating a whole new economy here, and it's being driven by small business.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

J. Reid: In the first quarter of 1999, new business incorporations were down 13 percent over the first quarter of last year. That is 700 businesses that should have started but haven't.

[1430]

Can the Small Business minister tell us why, under his government, fewer people want to start new businesses in B.C. and why incorporations are now in their fifth straight year of decline?

Hon. I. Waddell: Perhaps I could answer the hon. member's question by showing her a letter that I have here from Charles Locke of the Skiing Louise Group. They invest in skiing, in business, all over western Canada. He says: "You probably are . . . . "

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. I. Waddell: If the hon. members would listen . . . . He's talking about the exciting potential of investing in Fernie and Kimberley and other parts as well:

"Your recent directives about making British Columbia a friendlier place to invest are . . . encouraging. You probably are not aware that the Alberta government does not share your feelings with respect to mountain resort development, hence the shifting of our focus to British Columbia. We expect to invest, either for our own account or for the account of our resort partners, over $200 million at each resort over the next five years. Bearing in mind the considerable investment that Intrawest is making in Panorama, I expect that over $500 million will be invested in the East Kootenays during the next few years, with the bulk of the money coming from Alberta."

The letter is signed by Charles Locke, proprietor of the Skiing Louise Group, with a copy to Premier Ralph Klein of Alberta.

The Speaker: With the bell ending question period, I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary.

Petitions

B. Barisoff: On behalf of the tree fruit growers, particularly the apple growers, I rise to present this petition of over 4,000 names. They are looking for immediate relief for growers, with short-term and some long-term solutions.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. And in this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry Responsible for the Public Service.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE

(continued)

On vote 54: Public Service Employee Relations Commission, $12,891,000 (continued).

C. Clark: Before we broke for lunch, the minister was talking about this economic plan that the government has. I'd

[ Page 12897 ]

love it if the minister would take the envelope that he wrote the economic plan on the back of and table it in the Legislature so that everybody could see it.

[1435]

He talked about how the government is committed to growing the public service, at a rate that's faster than they're growing the private sector and all that, and how the government is absolutely committed to making sure that there's no job loss in the public service. I want to go over some of the job numbers in the public service with the minister, because he has said . . . . In fact, the first thing he said when he was appointed was that he's not here to lay people off. He's repeated that today; he's been consistent in his message.

Of course, that's not quite consistent with what the Premier used to say when he was running in the election. He said that the NDP would eliminate 452 management positions by the end of March 1996, that they would reduce the number of ministries from 18 to 15 and that they would eliminate 1,023 positions -- for a savings of $70 million. This is the Premier talking. The Premier then went on to say, in October '96, that there'd be $750 million in cuts to government spending and the elimination of 3,500 public sector jobs. He said that it would bring the total number of jobs eliminated in the public sector to 5,500. Did any of those promises come to fruition?

Hon. M. Sihota: There have been reductions in the size of the civil service, and I'm pleased to advise the member opposite of something she doesn't know. We have the smallest civil service, per capita, in the country. It always concerns me when members opposite complain about the size of the civil service. When you take a look at the civil service on a per-capita basis and recognize that we have the smallest civil service, we're getting remarkable value for money, and we're getting remarkable mileage from the people that work within the public sector.

On this side of the House, we value the work that people in the public service do. It's been my observation . . . . For the 14 years now that I've had the opportunity to serve in this chamber, I have been struck by the dedication of people in the public service and the kind and the quality of the work that they do -- above and beyond, I think, the call of duty. I've worked with conservation officers and been out with them at four in the morning while they've been, on their own time, trying to catch someone who's trying to poach elk. I've had officials come into my office at 11 o'clock at night, during night sittings, and . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, I've done that too. I make no apologies for that, hon. member. You may have a problem with that, but if you've got a problem with people being hands-on and going out there and doing their job, then you'd better rethink why you're in this business.

Talk about being hands-on: civil servants show up in my office at 11 o'clock at night, after they've put the kids to bed, to try and work on a file and to see our way through a problem -- a remarkably dedicated and very efficient public service. I take issue with the Leader of the Opposition, who constantly says that the public service is something that gets in the way -- that is fat, that is bloated -- and takes the view that they ought to be cut.

The member should know that I'm also deeply concerned and deeply disturbed by the kinds of comments we've been hearing from the Leader of the Opposition of late. He's been going around telling people that he will "fire government employees" who are on the payroll only because of their NDP ties. In this society, where people ought to be free to join political parties and to exercise their democratic rights in that way, never have I known anybody who gives anybody a blood test to see whether or not they're NDP or Liberal when they come into our office as civil servants. I tell you, we don't do that in the hiring process either.

Not only is it a fallacy for someone to make that kind of accusation, but more disturbing, the fact that the Leader of the Opposition would go around this province and openly say that he will fire people on the basis of their political affiliation is an affront to the kinds of rights that we try to establish in this society. It is offensive, and I would encourage the member opposite to stand up in this House and distance herself from her leader, stand up and say that they will not go out of their way and fire people on the basis of political affiliation, and come out and acknowledge that her leader is wrong.

It is wrong in our society to say that people ought to be fired from the civil service because of political affiliation.

[1440]

What do the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberals intend to do? Do they intend at some point to go through every office in every government building and ask people to open up their wallets or their purses to see if they've got an NDP membership card in hand? It's offensive. I would hope that the hon. member finds it offensive, and I hope that right now -- here, today -- she makes it clear that she does not agree with her leader on that point.

C. Clark: You know what is an affront, hon. Chair? It is an affront to the public when the government hires people not based on merit but based on what they think the political views of the people they're hiring are. That is what is an affront.

The public service is there to serve the public despite the government. The public service is there to serve the public no matter what political views the government holds. It is there for the public. It is supposed to outlive the government. What this government has done to the public service -- which is a mass politicization -- is an affront to the public.

They have gone in and taken what was once the most professional, non-partisan civil service in Canada and done everything they could to pervert its ends to the political ends that this government holds. It doesn't take you very long out there being a hands-on minister talking to people to find out that public servants in British Columbia are profoundly worried about that. They are profoundly worried that their ranks have been so infected by partisans, by people who've been hired solely because they're members of the governing party, that their ability to do their job has been affected. That is the problem.

There is a balance to be held in government; there is no question about that. At the political level, you're supposed to have political people; you're supposed to be able to hire people based solely on their party membership. But you have to have a balance. You can't allow that partisanship to infect the civil service.

Maybe the minister should spend some time going to talk to some of the people a columnist for the Vancouver Sun can apparently find. It was just the other day that we saw another

[ Page 12898 ]

article in the Vancouver Sun from Barbara Yaffe, who's talked to a federal civil servant who says something that I hear all the time, and that's simply that it must be very difficult for truly non-partisan, professional civil servants in British Columbia to do their job. They are sitting there, day by day, working on merit, doing their job, hoping to get ahead because of their brains, their creativity, their skill and their imagination. Meanwhile, they're sitting shoulder to shoulder with somebody who got their job not because they necessarily merited getting their job but because they held a party card.

That is what's an affront, and if you go out and talk to people in the civil service, that's what they'll tell you.

I do want to talk today a little bit about the order-in-council appointments that the government has made, how they go about hiring and how they go about determining merit for the civil servants, but I don't want to leave this point about the size of the civil service yet. What I am contrasting is this . . . . On being sworn in as minister, the minister's first comments were: "I am not going to cut the civil service." I want to contrast this with exactly the opposite comment that was made by the Premier when he was sworn in.

He said: "When I was sworn in as Premier last week, I said my first priority was to cut the size and cost of government." That is clearly at odds with this minister's direction. Will the minister tell us if that policy that the Premier clearly put in place in 1996 has changed?

Hon. M. Sihota: I am disturbed to see that the member opposite has not deviated from the position that her leader is taking. I'll tell the member right now that people are hired on the basis of merit. That's how they're hired. Now, the member suggests that the whole bureaucracy in British Columbia, putting aside OIC appointments -- and I listened very carefully to what she had to say -- has been politicized. Well, I suspect, then, that the member ought to have some kind of list. Is the opposition out there preparing a list? If there is a list, table it.

C. Clark: Give me a break. The minister, if he is such a hands-on minister, will surely be out there talking to civil servants and hearing exactly the same thing that I hear, that reporters from the Vancouver Sun can hear, that reporters who report on Ottawa can hear. And that's that morale in the civil service is at rock bottom, because the people who deserve to have their jobs are being leap frogged, are being beaten out for promotions by people who hold NDP cards. That is an affront to the public.

The public deserves to have a civil service that they can count on; a civil service that is entirely free of partisanship; a civil service that is there for them no matter what political direction the government has chosen, no matter when the government changes. They deserve to know that those civil servants are there looking out for their interests, not looking out for government interests.

[1445]

That's what we B.C. Liberals are talking about. We're talking about going back to the good old days, when B.C. once had the proudest, most non-partisan, most professional public service in the country. There are still a lot of those people working in British Columbia. There are still a lot of those people who have been tenacious enough to stick around through nine years of NDP government. They're still there, and they're still waiting. Well, when this government changes -- and it will . . . . Maybe it'll be two years from now, as the minister predicts; maybe it'll be sooner.

Let's just hope that when it does change, we're going to see a real change in policy, because you will no longer be required to hold a party card in order to get a job for the government. That's going to be the big change in the civil service. We are going to restore morale. We're going to restore a sense of pride in the civil service, and we're going to take away the taint that this government has infected it with -- the partisan taint that this government has infected it with.

But I want the minister to answer the question I have asked twice. His comments are so at odds with the Premier's position on the size of the civil service. The Premier said, when he was sworn in, that his number one priority was to cut, cut, cut the civil service. What happened to that priority, and why has the minister chosen to change direction?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member stands up in this chamber and says that people are hired on the basis of their political affiliation. I want the record to be very clear on the point that people are hired on the basis of their merit. I know of no process where people are hired on the basis of their political affiliation. Now, there are OIC appointments, and we all know what the role of OIC appointments is. But we're not talking in that context. Neither was the Leader of the Opposition, and neither is the member today talking in that context.

She's making a very serious allegation based on what she reads in the Vancouver Sun . I mean, give me a break. Is that the depth of her investigation into that type of allegation? It's a pretty serious allegation that people are hired on the basis of their political affiliation.

So now the Liberals are going around the province and saying that they will fire government employees who are on the payroll -- because of their ties with the NDP. If I can paraphrase what the hon. member just said a few minutes ago, they want to cleanse the public service. And I want to ask the member opposite: how do the Liberals intend to do that? What is your plan? Have you compiled a list of people who work in the public service that you're going to remove? Is that your plan? Are you going to a worksite, to public civil servants, and say: "Well, show us the card"? And if there's a card, are they fired?

Are you going to keep track of who puts up lawn signs in the city of Victoria and check on them and say: "Well, gosh, you put up a lawn sign for a candidate for the NDP. You're out of here"?

I want the member to understand the seriousness of what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. He's saying that he will fire people who are affiliated to a political party, and he says that in a free and democratic society where people have a right to join a political party, are free to express their opinions and are free to campaign for political parties -- openly. That's the kind of tradition we've built here in British Columbia, and now the members opposite want to turn the clock back to some kind of society where you're fired because of your political affiliation.

I thought society had advanced well beyond that point. I thought that the member understood that point very clearly. I thought that for sure she'd stand up and try to explain away the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. Putting aside OIC appointments, I find the comments of the member opposite offensive, and I'll give her one more chance to tell us exactly how it is that the Liberal Party intends to cleanse the public service.

C. Clark: Well, the minister seems to be so interested in tradition. The tradition that this government has followed

[ Page 12899 ]

with the public service is the kind of tradition you only see in one-party states -- one-party states where you don't get a job, you don't get to work on the public payroll, you don't get a dime from taxpayers, you don't get a job in the public service unless you hold a party card that fits the government's ideology. And that is wrong. It is wrong to infect the public service with a partisan level like that. It is disgraceful.

[1450]

What this minister has done -- what this government has done -- is pervert the ends that the public service is meant to serve. That's what this minister has done, and we would put an end to that.

You know, if this minister was the hands-on minister that he claims to be -- the hands-on minister going out there, riding on horseback at taxpayers' expense and investigating what's happening out there in the forests, investigating what's happening with public servants -- he would find out, when he talks to them, that they will tell him what's happening in the public service: their morale is at rock-bottom, and they don't feel like they can get ahead unless they have a party card.

There are so many anecdotal stories out there of people who say: "You know, I didn't get my promotion, I didn't get my job, because I don't hold an NDP party card." That's the level it's got to in the public service of British Columbia. And all the minister has to do is get out of his office, get off his horse and go in and talk to people about it. That's what he'll hear.

I want the minister to answer this question, and this is the fourth time that I have asked it. When he was first appointed, the Premier said his number one priority was to cut, cut, cut the public service. Now this minister says that he's not here to lay anybody off. Will the minister explain why he has changed the Premier's stated policy on the public service?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make this very clear, hon. Chair. On this side of the House we do not, through the hiring process, ask people to show a political card to see what their affiliation is before they are hired. And remember that we're having this debate in the context of non-OIC hiring within the government. We don't ask for that, but interestingly enough, the logical extension of the kind of position that the hon. member is taking is that they're going to go around and ask people for their cards.

That's precisely what she's saying, because the only way that you can cleanse the bureaucracy -- because that's what you want to do -- is go around and ask people to show their cards. We don't do it; they want to do it. It's offensive that the Leader of the Opposition would want to go around and try to fire people, as he says, because of their ties with the NDP.

Again I reiterate: we're in a free and democratic society. People are free to associate with any political party. They're free to campaign on the part of any political party. They're free to express their opinions, and they ought not to face ramifications for going out and doing that. That's the way we've created our society, and the Leader of the Opposition goes around and says that he would fire people from government because they exercise their right of political affiliation. Surely in 1999, on the dawn of a new millennium, that's wrong.

Yet the member opposite stands up in this chamber and reinforces the views of the Leader of the Opposition by saying that they would "get rid of" these people.

Well, I want to know who these people are. I think civil servants of British Columbia want to know how it is that she's gone out or intends to go out and identify who these people are and how it is that she intends to get rid of them. Surely she's got some kind of list -- produce it. She's been cataloguing some kind of names -- show it. She's got some kind of strategy. Doesn't she think British Columbians should know it? All they know now is that the Leader of the Opposition has gone around and made this incredible comment repeatedly, saying that people with NDP ties would be fired from government.

Before we go further, I want to know from the hon. member: what is her strategy? How does she plan to get rid of these people? How does she intend to identify them?

[1455]

C. Clark: You know, the government should also remember that in a free and democratic society, they are also free to hire people based on merit. They're also free to ask people . . . . When they ask for a piece of paper . . . . When someone comes in and applies for a job, the first thing they should ask for is a résumé, not a party card. That's another thing that they're free to do -- another freedom that this government doesn't tend to exercise very much. That's what they should do.

Why not go and hire somebody based on their merit, no matter what party they belong to? This isn't Soviet Russia. This isn't a one-party state. This is a diverse society of people with all kinds of political views, and people should be free to exercise whatever political view they like. But if they exercise the wrong political views, they can't work for the government.

Let's look at what George Morfitt, the auditor general, had to say. He suggested that there were people working in government that were asked to do things specifically by politicians to meet political ends. He suggested that there were bureaucrats who played along with the government's agenda on that. That's not right. Our society requires a balance of the political level and the civil service level, and they should be equal and separate.

You should have, at the political level, people who are hired for their partisan ties; people who are hired because they hold a party card; people who are hired because they will carry out the views and the ideas and the agenda of the people that were elected in this province.

But equally you must have an essential public service that is non-partisan; that is hired based solely on merit; that isn't there so that they can act as stooges for the government's ideological agenda -- people who will be there day in and day out, with their noses to the grindstone making sure the work gets done instead of spending all their time in meetings worrying about the scandal of the day or worrying about how they're going to push through the government's latest ideological plan. You have to have a balance, and my point is that this government has upset that balance profoundly.

[ Page 12900 ]

We will return that balance to government. We will make sure that the civil service is allowed to pursue the goals of the public, untainted by partisanship. Of course civil servants can exercise their political rights; of course they can. We would encourage them to do that. But you know what? Under a B.C. Liberal government, if somebody comes in and wants a job and they happen to be a New Democrat, that'll be okay. They'll still get the job if they're qualified.

But, you know, it doesn't seem that there's much of that happening with this government. If you walk in and you can't prove you're a New Democrat, it doesn't matter how qualified you are. The government already has somebody in mind for the job, and this civil service has been infected with partisanship. Its ends have been badly perverted, and it has been corrupted by the government's ideological agenda. We will return professionalism to this proud civil service in British Columbia -- that's what we'll do.

Now I will ask the question again. The Premier, when he was elected in 1996, said that the very first thing he was going to do was cut the civil service. He said he was going to cut 5,500 people from the civil service. In October of 1996 . . . . The Minister Responsible for the Public Service, when he was first appointed, said that his first priority was to keep people on; he wasn't going to lay anybody off. Where did the change in direction come from? Why did the minister decide to act against the Premier's orders?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let's look at the position that the hon. member is taking. She is saying: "We will restore balance to the civil service." The presumption that she makes -- and she says it very clearly -- is that the civil service, as she puts it, is infected by people that are associated with my political party. So she wants to restore balance. How does she intend to restore balance?

Does she intend to go out to every worksite in British Columbia, engage in some kind of a witch hunt, ask people to fess up and show what their cards are -- to demonstrate what their political ties are -- and then say: "Look, we've got four NDPers here, so now we've got to hire four Liberals here"? By the very logical extension of the position she's taking, she has to go to the worksite and identify people on the basis of their affiliation. It's a shame.

[1500]

Then she has the temerity to stand up in this House and mislead the people of British Columbia into believing, when she knows better, that people are asked -- when they're going through an interview process to be hired -- what their political affiliation is. To paraphrase her, she says that the first thing you are asked is whether or not you're a member of the NDP. Well, I think the hon. member knows as well as I do -- or so I am advised -- that she has members of her family that have been hired and that work in the civil service. Go and ask them, hon. member: when they were hired at B.C.

Transit or anywhere else in the system . . . . Go and ask them whether or not they were asked at the front end to show an NDP card before they got hired. If it isn't members within that circle, let me go further. Produce one person for me who went through an interview process here in British Columbia who, during the course of that interview process, was asked what the hon. member alleges they were asked. She alleges that they were asked whether or not they had an NDP card in their back pocket. Well, prove it, hon. member.

Bring forward to this chamber -- bring forward into the public eye -- one person who was asked outright during the interview process for a non-OIC position whether or not they held an NDP membership card.

I'll tell you: you can't find anybody. The problem here is that it's one big lie. You know, for weeks and years we've heard the members opposite -- based on what they read in the Vancouver Sun , not on the basis of any kind of fruitful investigation, go around . . . .

The Chair: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain stands on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I notice the Chair's reluctance to call the member to order, but on two occasions he's alleged that the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain is lying. I would demand that he retract those comments.

The Chair: I'm sure that if the minister feels that he's impugned any member in the House, he will withdraw . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain will come to order.

Minister, I would ask that you withdraw . . . .

Hon. M. Sihota: I withdraw anything that may have offended the member opposite in terms of a personal sort of attack on her . . . .

The Chair: The word "lie," I believe, is the word we're looking for -- if you would withdraw it.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, hon. Speaker, I said it is . . . . I made it very clear. I want to make it very clear . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: I just did. If you'd just settle down, you would have heard me.

The Chair: The minister has withdrawn the offensive word -- okay?

Hon. M. Sihota: But look -- and this will be very, very clear -- the Leader of the Opposition is going around the province of British Columbia and saying that he will fire government employees who are on the payroll only because of their NDP ties. The member opposite stands up and says -- in this chamber, five minutes ago -- that during the interview process people are being asked what their political affiliation is. Well, I'm saying that that's not occurring. I challenge the member opposite to give me one piece of evidence -- when she knows better -- about one individual that has gone through that kind of process.

G. Farrell-Collins: We know who's on your list.

Hon. M. Sihota: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain says: "Right. We'll fire people who have an NDP tie." Well, it is outrageous, in 1999, to say that people will be

[ Page 12901 ]

fired from the civil service because of their ties with the NDP. That's what the Leader of the Opposition said. And when I paraphrased him, that's what the member opposite said. It's offensive. It is contrary to the kind of rights that we've established in society. People have a right to join a political party. I'll defend that right. They have a right to exercise freedom of affiliation and freedom of speech. I'll defend that. It is offensive that the members opposite say: "We'll fire people who are hired because of their ties with the NDP."

An Hon. Member: Exactly.

Hon. M. Sihota: And they say "Exactly." It is offensive.

You know, I'm telling the members opposite that people are hired on the basis of merit. They're under some false illusion that all these people who work -- including some of the people that are sitting in this chamber, I guess, because some of them have been hired . . . . Throughout the professional civil service . . . the members opposite say that the civil service is "infected" by people who belong to the NDP. I say shame on the members opposite. They should know better.

[1505]

People are hired on the basis of merit. I know of no process within the civil service where people are hired on the basis of their political affiliation. I find it offensive that the members opposite would intimidate public service workers today in British Columbia and would say that if they formed the government, they would fire people because of their ties with the NDP. I can only assume . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, isn't this something? Now they want to try to hide behind wiggle words in the quote. Listen to what your hon. member said. He said -- and I have read it, all right . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Sihota: The point is very clear. During the course of this debate, the members opposite have repeatedly said that they will fire people because of their affiliation with the NDP, that the public service is infected by people in the NDP. Well, I'll tell you what.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, no. I'll tell you what. I'll give the members opposite the opportunity to stand up in the House and explain what they meant, what their leader meant -- what he really meant to say. At the end of the day, what he's saying to people is that they'll be fired because of their ties with the NDP. That is offensive.

C. Clark: You know, sometimes I feel like we are very, very fortunate that no one in British Columbia believes this minister anymore. This minister has so little credibility that no matter what he says, no matter how untrue, he'll never get away with it. At least we're fortunate in that respect, because what the minister has done is take a quote and turn it into something where he says: "The B.C. Liberals won't hire someone based on their political affiliation." No, that's not correct. What the B.C. Liberals have said is that we won't hire people based on their political affiliation alone.

We won't hire people just because they're a member of a certain political party. We will only hire people if they are qualified. We will hire them based on merit. That's what the B.C. Liberals will do.

Let me quote for the minister. Here's what it is in writing: we will "restore a professional, non-partisan civil service. We will pass merit employment legislation to establish the highest-quality public service based on competency, not political promotion." That's what we'll do. I would challenge the minister: if he believes in those goals -- which he claims to -- and if he believes what he says he believes in, then will he vote for the merit employment legislation that we've introduced to this House? Will he support us in our campaign platform to have a merit commissioner?

The minister knows full well that people that are working in the civil service aren't going to come to him and say: "Gee, Moe. Guess what, Moe. I know you don't care about my political affiliation, but guess what . . . . "

Interjections.

The Chair: Order members. Member, take your seat, please. This debate, members, has reached a point where we're very repetitive in argument, and members are getting heated to a point of breaking the rules on both sides. So I would ask members to perhaps take a moment, reflect where we are and proceed with some kind of rational debate on the estimates.

C. Clark: The minister knows full well that people who are currently employed by the government will not be coming to him for fear of their jobs. They're not going to come forward and say to the minister: "Gee, minister, I'm really concerned about the way the public service hiring process works. I think that your political party is tainting it with partisanship." Of course they're not. People won't do that for fear of their jobs.

That's why we need a merit employment commissioner in British Columbia, someone who's independent of the government and who can stand up for civil servants that are concerned about what's going on no matter who's in government -- someone like the auditor general or the conflict-of-interest commissioner who would stand outside of the partisan process of this House; someone who would be appointed unanimously by an all-party vote of the House and who would be able to hear the concerns of public servants in private, confidentially, without fear for their jobs. That is precisely the problem.

This minister doesn't get it. He thinks that there must be no problem, because people don't come to him directly and complain about the fact that his political party is causing a problem. Well, guess what. There's a good reason for that: they live in fear for their jobs. That's why they don't do it. This minister demonstrated his understanding of the way balance in the public sector works. He took my comments about balance to mean that what you've got to do is have an equal number of partisans in the public service. So for every four New Democrats you have, you've got to have four B.C.

Liberals and maybe a Reformer or two. That's his idea of balance in the public service. My idea of balance is a public service where people are hired regardless of where they stand politi

[ Page 12902 ]

cally. The only level where you need to balance partisan concerns is the political level versus the non-partisan level. You don't go in and start . . . .

[1510]

This minister thinks that restoring balance would mean that we'd go in and replace the New Democrats with Liberals -- or at least half of them with Liberals. No, that's not what we're talking about. That's why he has a fundamental misunderstanding of why the public service needs to be non-partisan. That's the problem here. You don't go in and replace half the New Democrats with Liberals. You go in and start hiring people based on merit again, so that the first piece -- and the only piece -- of paper that you ask people for is their résumé and their references. Who cares who they support in elections?

That's not relevant; the public doesn't care. They only care that people that they're paying and that are serving their interests are qualified.

If the minister is so committed to this idea that we need to have a non-partisan public service that's untainted by partisan ends, will he support the introduction of a merit employment commissioner, who would be outside this Legislature -- similar to the auditor general or the conflict-of-interest commissioner -- to whom public servants could report on matters like partisanship and who would be able, on an ongoing basis, to monitor the application of the merit principle by the government in its hiring?

K. Krueger: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

K. Krueger: On behalf of my colleague from Langley, whose business duties take her elsewhere at the moment, I'd like to introduce 55 grade 5 students from Willoughby Elementary School in Langley, their teachers, Mrs. Silen and Ms. Matson, and seven adults who are accompanying them. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: If the member opposite believes, as she has said, that the civil service is infected with people that are affiliated with my political party . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: . . . oh, and that they're only hired . . . that the only qualification -- and we'll get to that in a few minutes -- for their entry into the civil service, the only basis . . .

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, no, listen to me.

. . . for these infected employees, if I can put it that way -- the subset, of what she calls infected employees -- to be hired was because of their ties with the NDP . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, then, I want the hon. member to stand up and name one name.

K. Krueger: You've got the names. You've got the list.

C. Clark: The minister knows full well that public servants will not be coming . . . .

Interjection.

C. Clark: Oh, the minister wants it. You know why? This is exactly the problem that public servants have. You know, the minister says: "Well, the reason . . . . " He never hears about any problems, so there must not be any problems out there. Doesn't he understand that people would be concerned about coming forward to him, one of the most partisan members of the New Democrats, to complain that there are people around them who are being hired solely on the basis of the fact that they're associated with his party?

Doesn't he understand that people like that might be concerned for their jobs? Or doesn't he care? Or maybe he wants to build a list. Maybe he wants to build a list to find out who those people are, find out the ones they haven't gotten to yet. Maybe that's what the minister is after.

But if the minister is truly concerned about civil servants whose morale and whose work life is being affected by the fact that they can't get ahead in their jobs because the merit principle isn't being properly applied, then surely he will support the creation of an office for a merit employment commissioner which would be able to operate independently of this partisan Legislature and would be able to monitor the application of merit hiring and merit promotion in the civil service.

[1515]

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, let me again put it very . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I'll answer the question in a minute. But let me challenge the member . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, no, let me . . . . You know, the problem that the Liberal Party has gotten into is that their leader and their party believe -- and, I will argue vehemently, wrongly -- that the civil service, to quote the member opposite, is "infected" by people who have been hired only because of their ties with the NDP. That is not the case. If the members believe that, if they sincerely believe that and they want to stand up, as they have, in this chamber and outside and make that kind of allegation, then they should be prepared to name at least one name -- and they can't.

I'll tell you why, hon. Speaker -- and now I'll answer the member's question.

Section 8 of the Public Service Act reads -- and this is a statute of British Columbia -- that "appointments . . . from within the public service must (

a) be based on the principle of merit, and (

b) be the result of a process designed to appraise . . . . "

G. Farrell-Collins: Surprise -- you've broken the law. There's a shocker.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, if the hon. member thinks that we have broken this provision of the statute, he should stand up and, firstly, put it on the record . . .

The Chair: Through the Chair.

[ Page 12903 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: . . . secondly, go out there and say it; thirdly, give us evidence that this has happened. I challenge him right now to do that. I challenge him right this very moment to show some guts for a change and stand up and say that we've broken that law -- walk out of here, repeat it and give us one example, one name, one person that we've hired in violation of this statute. I challenge you, hon. member.

Interjections.

The Chair: Member, you've been recognized.

C. Clark: Oh, thank you, hon. Chair. I didn't hear you recognize me in the din here.

What the minister is saying smacks of the worst era of McCarthyism I can imagine. He sits there and says: "Name names. Come forward. We want to know who's complained. We want to know who's giving you information. We want to know who's talking to the reporters. We want to know where the leaks are."

You know, it sort of reminds me of the comments of his erstwhile travelling companion. Let's remember that he was going to go travelling the province with the wife of the latest addition to cabinet. Now, what did she say? Ms. Tyabji Wilson said something similar to what the minister said, which was: "You know, we know that there are problems in government. We know that there are civil servants out there who are leaking things, who are telling stories to the opposition." She said: "Our first job is to go, find who those people are, root them out and fire the saboteurs." Remember that?

That was her attitude about cleaning up the public service. Then, not a week later, the minister decides he wants to hit the road with her, do some travelling around and talk about policy.

Well, that's the minister's attitude about the public service -- the worst kind of McCarthyism we've seen in this Legislature in a long time. Standing up, wanting us to name names and come forward with the leaks so they can fire the saboteurs . . . . Well, the minister knows full well that it ain't going to happen. We are not going to stand up here and compromise those hard-working civil servants who've come forward with complaints about this government. We are not going to do it. We are not going to compromise those people who've had the courage to speak up.

Now, maybe they don't have the luxury of going out and risking their jobs, putting their butts on the line for a government that is concerned about partisanship. But we are not going to jeopardize those people.

If the minister is genuinely concerned about giving those people a way to complain, a way to make sure that the merit principle is being applied, then surely he will support the creation of an office of a commissioner to monitor the merit principle in British Columbia. If he doesn't support that, maybe he can tell us why he doesn't.

[1520]

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister for the Public Service challenges me to stand up and say what I said when I was sitting here, when he was reading out the Public Service Act. What I said was: "Wouldn't we all be shocked to learn that the member opposite had broken the law? Wouldn't we be shocked?" That is exactly what I said. I would never be shocked by anything the Minister for the Public Service has done, because he's been kicked out of cabinet twice for improprieties. Now he's working on number three, and I can't wait to hear it.

The Chair: The Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Northern Development on a point of order.

Hon. D. Miller: I have been listening with interest to the exchange. I suspect that both sides have probably deviated somewhat from the estimates process. Perhaps it might be a more fruitful discussion if we returned there.

The Chair: That's the same view that the Chair has. I would like to deal with the estimates before us.

Hon. M. Sihota:

Section 8 of the statute . . . .

I won't comment on the last interruption from the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, because it is discernibly different from what I heard and other members heard him say. But that's okay, you know. There are members in this chamber who . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. We're on the estimates, members.

Hon. M. Sihota:

Section 8(2) of the statute says: "The matters to be considered in determining merit must, having regard to the nature of the duties to be performed, include the applicant's education, skills, knowledge, experience, past work performance and years of continuous service in the public service." So those are the bases upon which people are hired in the civil service.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: In response to the question that the member had raised earlier on -- once they settle down -- we did make some reductions in the civil service. We continue to make reductions in certain ministries within the civil service. We've also brought forward a job security provision within government, within the collective bargaining process that protects the integrity of the paycheques of the people that work within the civil service.

We have, at the front end of our term, proceeded with a series of downsizes. The allegation or the suggestion that was made back when I assumed this responsibility was that we would be proceeding with a massive downsizing. I've indicated that we weren't going to do that, and we haven't done that. We've protected the paycheques of civil servants here in the greater Victoria area and throughout British Columbia.

One of the reasons why we did that was because in years past it has been noted, by people throughout the greater Victoria area in particular and certainly by people who were involved in looking after the economy in this community during the mid-eighties, that if one went through massive downsizing within the government, it had a chilling effect on our economy.

We as a government made a very conscious decision to try (

a) to protect the job security of workers in the public

[ Page 12904 ]

service and (

b) to work with the civil sector in terms of achieving some of these targets to downsize that we as a government had. In large measure, we've achieved those objectives, and that work is complete. Unlike many other jurisdictions in Canada, we have also entered into collective agreements that have gain-sharing provisions in them, which will allow both the union and government to have the benefit of any productivity changes within the public service and to share that benefit.

So there is no inconsistency here between the course that we laid out in 1996 and where we are at today, the trend line that we're on. I think what's noteworthy is the way in which we've been able to structure this, particularly with regard to the gain-sharing and job security provisions.

C. Clark: I don't know who's telling the truth here, but while the minister says that there's no contradiction, it appears to me that there is a contradiction. The Premier said that he was going to cut the civil service. When we first started out this morning, the minister said that the size of the civil service has remained static for the last three years -- the direct government employees. So which one of them was telling the truth?

[1525]

Hon. M. Sihota: This morning I gave the member some numbers. In 1997 the full-time-equivalents within government stood at 40,673; today they stand at 33,495. So government has downsized the size of the civil service. As I said earlier on, we have the leanest civil service of any government in Canada. We've also enacted provisions of the collective agreement, which I've already referred to and which I'm not going to repeat.

The fact of the matter is that we have downsized. We're not prepared to proceed with any massive downsizing of the civil service at this time. Our focus is working on training-, development- and morale-related issues.

C. Clark: I was just saying to my colleague that I wish I had my notes from this morning, because when we were talking about the growth of the civil service, we were talking about the total growth in job numbers in British Columbia. Sixty percent of the new growth in job numbers last year was in the public service. The minister wasn't very clear about where that job growth occurred. If it didn't happen with direct government employees, where did it happen?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't have the statistics from StatsCan that the member referred to, so I don't know the basis upon which StatsCan does its classifications. I'm advised that part of their classification is based on public debt expenditures, and the allocations in terms of public sector job growth are based, in part, on the expenditures that we make on debt.

As I said to the member this morning, when we build a school, a road or a hospital, it may be that StatsCan counts those people as public service employees, when in essence it's through a private bidding system, through the private sector, that people get that work. I think that's the reason, in part, why we've got differences between what StatsCan does and what we do.

My responsibilities are for the direct public sector. I think you can get information from the Crowns. If the member is having difficulty in getting that information, I'd be quite happy to give her information that relates to the growth within the Crowns, if there is any. I don't have that here, but I'll make sure that staff work with me to try to get that, and I'll send it over to the member at some point.

C. Clark: Yeah, I would like to get that information. There has clearly been a growth in the public sector in British Columbia, but for the purposes of this debate, the government decides to define the public sector in a different way than it normally does. I mean, if people are being paid by government, that's a pretty good definition of public sector -- if that's where their money is coming from, if it's being negotiated according to wage guidelines that are set by the public sector.

For example, maybe the minister can give us an answer on this, on wage guidelines. The government negotiated with HCL a nice, big fat pay raise for highway construction workers with HCL, and that pay raise exceeded the public sector wage guidelines. Can the minister explain for us why the government chose to exceed its own guidelines on public sector wage increases?

Hon. M. Sihota: My understanding of that is precisely what the hon. Deputy Premier is saying: if you look at the length of the contract and the time period, it was a contract that was not renewed. And if you extrapolate it out on that basis and look at the time period the whole contract has covered, you're not off those guidelines.

C. Clark: Well, it's not a retroactive contract. It's not -- you know . . . . The government sets wage guidelines that it's supposed to live within year by year. Those wage guidelines aren't for a ten-year period. Why don't they . . . ?

Interjection.

C. Clark: Oh, maybe the government wants to explain that to the public sector workers that are out on strike. Okay, now they're changing their guidelines. They're doing it over a ten-, 15-, 20-year amortization period. Is that how the government's public sector wage guidelines work? Maybe the minister can clarify for us how it is that the public sector wage guidelines have gone from being a year-to-year guideline to something that's retroactive. If they are retroactive, and they are amortizing it over a long period of time, is that period ten years? Is it 20 years? Or are they looking at a 30-year period?

[1530]

Hon. M. Sihota: The framework for those guidelines is not set by this ministry; it's set by the Ministry of Finance. It's administered through PSEC. The agreements all go through PSEC to ascertain the degree to which they fall within those guidelines. Since that department's not under my purview, I am a little reluctant to speak to the matters that fall within the framework of the Minister of Finance. However, I will make sure that I secure some information around the HCL issue to give the member a better answer.

C. Clark: Well, I'll leave that issue for a little while; we'll certainly come back to it.

We were talking about -- we've gone off on a little bit of a tangent here -- the Public Service Commission. We've identified the minister's reluctance to put up what would essentially be a policeman for government, a policeman for the merit-

[ Page 12905 ]

hiring provisions of the act -- somebody who would make sure that the government's acting honestly and straight up, and make sure that the public interest is being served. We've identified that the minister is scared of that kind of proposal. He doesn't want to have any policeman out there who might be overseeing the way the government does its hiring. He doesn't want a public service commissioner -- someone who will make sure that the merit principle is properly applied. He doesn't want to do that; we've established that.

The minister doesn't want to have someone looking over his shoulder or this government's shoulder, making sure that the merit principle is applied. We've done that. We've established that.

The minister has talked, though, about the Public Service Commission, and he's talked about making sure that there is diversity within the public service. He's indicated that he wants to make sure that there is better representation in the public service, we know, of New Democrats. But we also know he wants to make sure that there is better representation of women, visible minorities, disabled people and people who normally get shortchanged. Can the minister tell us what targets he's set for equity hiring?

Hon. M. Sihota: The member hasn't established anything. I just thought I'd let the issues go by, since we'd had a vigorous debate on it. But we do have a commissioner -- sitting next to me, actually. He is the commissioner of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission. For the record, the Public Service Act, which obviously the members opposite are not as familiar with as they should be, makes it clear that hiring is on the basis of merit. In terms of equity hire, on the visible minority side it's our objective to achieve a higher representation rate that is equal to that which is in the public at large.

C. Clark: Well, the public service commissioner does have the power to direct that certain hires be made, that exceptions to

section 8 be made. How often has the commissioner done that?

The Chair: The member has the floor.

C. Clark: How often has the public service commissioner made exceptions to

section 8?

Hon. M. Sihota: To the best of our recollection, it may have been used maybe half a dozen times over the last four years.

C. Clark: What strategies has the minister implemented or created to make sure that they increase the diversity of the public service?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, in 1993 we brought forward an employment equity statute and made amendments to the Public Service Act. Astonishingly, the Liberal Party voted against it. In addition to that, we brought forward a whole set of other initiatives. We had a directive to the deputy minister to the Premier in the mid-1990s to try to improve our record. We worked in consultation with the Visible Minorities Employees Association of the public sector to try to change some of our practices. We created an equity and diversity division within PSERC. We have individuals dedicated to that work right now.

[1535]

In fact, in this year's allocation we've actually made further allocations for more employment equity hire within the civil service to establish a more aggressive policy in that regard. It's been my assessment that we have not moved anywhere near the pace at which I would have expected.

R. Thorpe: I was in my office, listening and trying to work, and there was this noise from time to time. I was looking at a report, which I received not too long ago, that the Public Service Employee Relations Commission sent to the minister in December of 1998. I'm sure the minister has read this report in depth and understands it. The debate you were having was the number of employees in the provincial government. Does the commission keep monthly running totals by ministry of the number of employees working for the government?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.

R. Thorpe: Well, if we do, why does there seem to be such a debate here on the figures? Maybe the minister could commit to providing those monthly figures to the opposition so that we could have a look at them. Would the minister undertake to do that?

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: If the member has a pen, he should write down the number 387-0512. In his capacity as an MLA, he could dial that at any time.

R. Thorpe: One of the things that most of the members in this House have always appreciated is the sincerity of this minister. So I do appreciate his . . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Yes, hopefully, they can see the tongue in my cheek.

When will this . . . ? I notice that this report was late for the years '96 and '97. When will this report and its detail be ready for this House?

Hon. M. Sihota: Is the member asking for . . . ? He didn't quantify what year.

R. Thorpe: When will the report be ready for the year ending March 31, 1999?

Hon. M. Sihota: It should be ready by September.

R. Thorpe: Changing subjects . . . . I want to thank the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain for allowing me to ask this question. Last week, when I was back in the riding, I met with some community social services workers. These individuals are very, very troubled. They do work with people in our community: the Okanagan Independent Living Society, the Family First Society, the transition house, and the Penticton and District Society for Community Living -- we know that affectionately as the training centre. These workers are feeling betrayed by this government, feeling left out. I wonder if the minister could share with us his expectations on when

[ Page 12906 ]

these apparently difficult situations can be resolved so that those that are most disadvantaged and in need in our communities can have the full services that they so rightfully deserve.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, the parties are currently in negotiations. I'm advised that progress is occurring at the table.

R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister could -- through you, Chair, back to me -- give his views on why these community social service workers are feeling so betrayed by his government.

Hon. M. Sihota: We are in the middle of a labour dispute on that very issue. We're in the midst of a very difficult labour dispute. During the course of any dispute, emotions run strong. This government has a pretty good record -- a very good record, in fact -- of looking after the working poor in society and trying to enhance services. As well, we have a very good record in terms of dealing with issues as they relate to pay equity. But I understand -- and I've had many occasions to deal with people that are on strike -- that emotions run strong.

I think that perhaps a more appropriate time to talk about the depth of their emotions is when these matters, as they relate to labour negotiations, are resolved and there is a contract before us and we have a better sense of where everybody's going. At that time, my view is that any sense of betrayal that people have will, I'm sure, be remedied through the collective bargaining process.

[1540]

R. Thorpe: Will the minister please tell not just the workers but probably more importantly those disadvantaged in our communities that he and his government are committed and will be serious in trying to resolve this dispute as quickly as possible?

Hon. M. Sihota: We are serious and committed. We are in the midst of negotiations right now. I suspect that the parties would not be back at the table if there wasn't a sense of commitment or seriousness.

C. Clark: So where is the minister's commitment to child care workers? They took a strike vote understanding that they were at the table, that they were part of the bargaining that was going on, that they were going to be funded. They were told that by government. They took a strike vote based on that understanding, and now they're being told that, well, they're not part of the negotiations at all. Where is the government's commitment to that group?

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let's be frank about what's happening in this chamber right now. On one hand, there's a very sensitive labour dispute happening in this province. That brings upon me some reluctance to talk about these issues, because I've learned from many years in public office that when there is a labour dispute, one is best advised to allow for the issues to be worked out at the table. There is, on the other hand, a slight bit of opportunism at play, as well, by the members opposite.

I think it's well known that both our political party and our government -- and certainly someone who represents a constituency of the working poor . . . . Historically there has always been a strong affiliation between our government and those workers, which makes the dispute even more difficult when you're in the midst of negotiating with friends. So I will resist the temptation to say too much, out of respect for the fact that we are in the midst of a debate at the bargaining table, and I would trust that the member opposite will also resist the temptation to be opportunistic.

C. Clark: I'm asking about the people that the government is refusing to negotiate with, the people that they're not in negotiation with. The people that thought they were in negotiation with the government or with the government's agencies took a strike vote on that basis, walked away from their jobs in order to try and force the government to bargain with them and then found out that the government was never bargaining with them at all.

My question isn't about the people that the government's bargaining with; my question is about the people they are not bargaining with, the people that are not at the table, the people they've kicked out of the room and shut the door on. My question is: why has the government decided in midstream, after telling child care workers that they were part of the negotiations and that their table was part of the bargaining, that suddenly they are not going to negotiate with them at all, and they're not part of the negotiations?

[1545]

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, it's not, with all respect to the hon. member, and I know she started these estimates wondering what my mandate was. I can understand that that might be a little confusing. But technically, this falls outside my mandate. Having said that, I'll be in the Chair's hands and under the Chair's advice in terms of how to deal with that element of the issue.

Let me just say for the record that there is a lot that gets said during the course of negotiations. We again have a very good record in terms of enhancing child care services for working families in British Columbia, a record that really distinguishes us from all other governments in Canada. As we've expanded the repertoire of child care services that are available and as more people have come on-stream to provide those services, that raises its own set of issues. Those issues are currently at the bargaining table.

There's a lot of sensitivity and sympathy from members on this side of the House for the families that are affected and the workers. It's in everybody's interest to see that the matter is resolved with some dispatch. I think it's everybody's agreement that the dispute has gone on for some time now. It's been my experience, when disputes go on for this length of time, that the atmosphere is created to bring about a resolution. It's my understanding that the parties are back at the table. It's also my information that the discussion at the table is progressing well. Therefore I would anticipate that at the table, the very issues that the member flagged will be addressed.

C. Clark: My question is about the people that are not at the table. I want to know from the minister why they are not at the table. When did the government make the decision to change its policy with respect to child care providers? Low-wage redress was provided through PSEC for five years. The previous ministers -- granted, not ministers for the public service -- have always considered it and have stated publicly

[ Page 12907 ]

that it's part of PSEC. Suddenly the government has changed its position and says that child care workers are no longer at the table. They are not part of the negotiations. When did the government -- and I understand this decision was made before a strike vote was even taken, but they didn't tell them until after the strike vote had been taken -- make the decision that child care workers were not going to be funded as part of this negotiation?

The Chair: Would the minister please stay seated.

Member, we are dealing here with the appropriation of the Ministry for the Public Service. The minister has said that this line of questioning is not within the purview of his ministry. Therefore I would ask that the member change the line of questioning.

C. Clark: I guess if we're relying on the minister to tell us what questions he feels like answering, we may have shorter estimates. If we rely on the minister's advice for which questions he feels like pursuing and which avenues he doesn't feel like pursuing, it could be a lot shorter. This morning we established that this minister is involved -- and he freely admits it; he proudly boasts about it -- in every ministry of government, especially when there's a problem. He goes in and solves it. He rides in on horseback and solves the problem.

Well, there is a problem in the public service, and here's the Minister for the Public Service. Oh, suddenly he's not responsible for it. Oh, gee, suddenly he doesn't feel like answering questions about it. Well, okay. If the Chair wants to take direction from the minister about what he feels like answering and what he doesn't feel like answering, then I suppose that will be the rule of this House.

If the minister doesn't want to stand up and give child care agencies any sense of comfort about why the government changed its direction, why it went back on previous ministers' very firm commitments, why the government has locked them out of the room and is refusing to deal with them after they've had a strike vote -- isn't giving them any remedy, now that they're stuck out there hitting the bricks, after they've led them down this garden path . . . . Well, he doesn't have to do that, I suppose. That would be the rule of the House.

[1550]

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, take your seat.

Hon. D. Miller: There was a point of order. This is not part of the estimates of this ministry.

The Chair: I'd like to remind the member that this line of questioning does not fall within the purview of the minister. If the minister says that he chooses not to answer that line of questioning, that is his choice. So I remind the member to stick to the ministry at hand.

C. Clark: Let's talk about the collective agreement that the government has concluded with the BCGEU. I understand that the government is going through a process of reclassifying all the employees in the government. I wonder how far that process has gotten along.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me just say a few things. First of all, I've never heard a question in this chamber that I haven't enjoyed answering. I think the member knows that I enjoy debate in this chamber. But like the member opposite, I'm also constrained by the rules of this chamber, and as much as I'd love to get into a debate around issues that fall outside these rules, I can't. I know that the member takes issue with that. I'd love to have that debate. I understand, however . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I can't change the rules unilaterally, and neither can the member. I think the member knows full well that the negotiations . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's right.

Hon. Chair, you know, I really don't like upsetting the member opposite. It does cause me great pain to see her so upset. I wish I could give her the comfort of a further dialogue. Let me suggest this, then. Perhaps we can talk about it when we recess at 6 o'clock. I can talk to her about the relationships between the various employers on the child care side. Or I can certainly arrange for her to meet with the Minister for Children and Families to discuss the matter further -- or, alternatively, with the bargaining committee.

I think it's quite appropriate for the member to express concern around these issues, and so I'll certainly undertake, if the member wishes, to make those arrangements for her so that she can be better informed.

With regards to the question that she asked, the reclassification process is only triggered when there's a change of incumbent.

C. Clark: I would love to have this discussion with the Minister for Children and Families too, but she says she's not responsible either. So we've got the Minister for the Public Service, who says he's responsible for everything, saying he's not responsible and he doesn't want to talk about it. So he wants to pass it along to a minister who says she's not responsible, even though the Minister Responsible for the Public Service, who's responsible for everything, says that she is responsible. But that's the only thing that he's not responsible for. So that's how . . . .

I'm getting a picture of how this government is structured. So the idea here is that the minister will only answer the questions that he feels like answering. He'll decide whether it's in his purview or not. When he came in and said that he was going to take stock of his universe, he was going to be the minister for everything, well, there were some corners of the universe where he didn't want to go. There are some corners of the universe where he doesn't want to stand up and have the debate.

He says: "Let's stand up and have the debate." And then he sits down and says: "I don't want to debate it." It's bizarre -- a government in total chaos. Nobody knows who is in charge of what, and this minister decides he's only in charge of what he feels like being in charge of, or he only wants to talk about some of the things that he's in charge of. It's totally bizarre.

[1555]

K. Krueger: The minister can do anything he wants. It's like the government that does anything it wants.

C. Clark: Exactly. The member says: "The minister can do anything that . . . . " Well, anyway, I won't get into that.

[ Page 12908 ]

We talked about the BCGEU contract, and the minister said that the BCGEU contract says that there are reclassifications done only when a job changes. My understanding, just from speaking to public servants and from reviewing the reports of the ministry, is that this is an ongoing process, that there's a time line for it and that there have been some goals set for the ministry for getting this reclassification done. If that's so, could the minister tell us what they are?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me deal with both issues that the member raises. I know that the member opposite is a rookie member, and I know that all members that are new to government sometimes have difficulty finding their way through the maze of government. I hear the member expressing that frustration. So I'll certainly make sure that she meets with the appropriate minister to continue that dialogue -- which, by the way, may well be the Minister of Finance. Like I say, we've all been new to this chamber at some point, and we've all had difficulty finding our way through the maze of government.

The member is also mistaken on this point: the reclassification time line issue that she flags was a matter that fell within the purview of the old contract. There is now in place a new contract, and time lines are not required under that new contract. Rather, the reclassification occurs either when the position is empty, when an employee requests it or when a position is vacant. I understand that those are the three bases upon which the changes occur. I think the distinction lies in the fact that we've now gone to a new contractual regime.

C. Clark: You know, I really take offence at listening to this minister stand here and patronize me with making some personal comments in this chamber. This is the same minister that's the first person to stand up every time and say: "Oh, gee, don't get personal. Don't talk about the Premier's house being searched; that's personal. Don't talk about me taking my wife on a trip; that's personal." He stands in the hall and cries his crocodile tears about people getting personal, day after day after day -- his standard defence. And he's the first person to stand up . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Point of order.

The Chair: Member, please sit down. I recognize the Minister Responsible for Northern Development.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, clearly, Mr. Chairman, it's not my role to draw attention on a continuous basis . . . . But to simply stand and rant on a matter that is completely unrelated to the estimates that are under discussion in this House is, I think, an offence of the rules. Perhaps, while it may be difficult to focus on the specific questions concerning the ministry, it might be more fruitful.

The Chair: May I remind all members to limit their discussion to the Ministry for the Public Service.

C. Clark: So while this minister is quite happy to talk about other people's personal lives and other people's families in this chamber, he'll cry his crocodile tears and make sure that nobody . . . . You know, every time somebody wants to criticize him, it's a personal matter. Well, it's the height of hypocrisy -- the height of it.

The minister talked about the BCGEU contract and how it was under the last contract that the government finished its formal reclassification process. How much did that add in total costs to the contract?

Hon. M. Sihota: As I understand it, the member was asking about the cost of the classification process. The cost of that over the life of the contract is about $8 million.

C. Clark: The minister said $8 million for the reclassification process. Is that right? I want to just be clear with that.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes -- the life of this contract.

C. Clark: I do want to be clear with the minister. Is he talking about the cost of the process or the total cost in added wages and benefits for the employees?

[1600]

Hon. M. Sihota: That's the cost of the additional wage costs of the reclassification provision of the contract.

K. Krueger: It seems to me that a lot of people are still grappling with the minister's job description and the new ministry. I understood one of the minister's goals -- or the government's stated goals when the ministry was created and the minister was appointed -- to be that the minister would act as oil in the machinery, if I could use that term -- a minister who would work in the situations where there are interministerial responsibilities touching on a particular problem and try to ensure that things moved ahead and got accomplished.

I'd like to bring to the minister's attention, in this House and on the record, a matter that I wrote to him about, where I hoped that he would be able to accomplish something in fulfilling that role. This pertains to a number of my constituents. Some are farmers, and some are residents living along the Westsyde Road, which is on the west side of the North Thompson River in my constituency. They are residents of the city of Kamloops. They live below the Lac du Bois area. A new park has been created there during the last several years.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

This area may be one of the watersheds most disturbed by human activity in British Columbia. Ever since the days that the Hudson's Bay Company was establishing itself in the Kamloops area, there have been various irrigation systems and water diversions, and so on, and this has continued to this day. There's cattle ranching in the high country above Westsyde Road. There's a very large Ducks Unlimited project that's been approved. There's a lot of interministerial cooperation, and that involves the ministries of Agriculture, Environment, Lands and Parks; of Transportation and Highways; and Forests, including their range management people.

So all of this interaction that occurs and the various projects that have taken place in that territory are believed by residents of Westsyde Road to have given rise to the problems they're currently experiencing, which can't really be attributed just to years of excessive precipitation. These people are experiencing a dramatic change in the level of water in the water table under their properties. One constituent, for example, had a raspberry farm when she moved to her property. The land was quite dry, and she had to irrigate it constantly to produce

[ Page 12909 ]

her raspberry crops. Now she practically lives in a swamp. She has to have two sump pumps operating 24 hours a day in order to keep her basement from flooding.

I know that the minister is familiar with this file, because he wrote me on it recently, so I don't want to take up more of the House's time than is necessary to outline these details. But suffice it to say that these people are really stressed by the problems that they're experiencing with the water table.

I've been delighted with the level of cooperation of the civil servants in the various ministries, and these are long-term civil servants, not recent appointees. They are people who are genuinely concerned with the issues and with service to the public, as they should be. I know they've been working between themselves. They've certainly met with me at my request. We took a group of the affected residents. We all took the time to travel up to the grasslands far above Westsyde Road, and we looked at the Ducks Unlimited project and the various diversions.

We agreed, all of us -- as commonsense people can do, both civil servants and members of the public who have goodwill -- on a solution to this problem. There is some disagreement as to whether the Ducks Unlimited project or other projects have led directly to the problem, but the fact is that the water seems to be percolating underground through different patterns than it used to, so it's showing up on these people's land. An old streambed below Westsyde Road, leading into the North Thompson River, has long since been farmed over, and no one knows where it used to be.

But there is an individual, a fine man named Mike Puhallo, who's willing to allow the water to be channelled through his land, and he has dug a trench through his own land for that.

The residents proposed -- and it seemed that the ministerial employees of all ministries involved also believed it would be a commonsense solution -- that a trench be dug parallel to Westsyde Road and just above it on Crown land, that pipe be installed to collect the water, however it's percolating down to that level, and that it be diverted into Mr. Puhallo's trench. The residents were willing to donate the labour and the machinery to do the job; they own machinery between them.

All that was required was some permission from government, and what was desired was perhaps some contribution towards the necessary materials -- the pipe and so on. Apparently there's pipe that would be donated by Afton mine properties, which are no longer in service as mines.

[1605]

I wrote to the minister, thinking that well, this sounds like the perfect opportunity for him to demonstrate whether he can actually deliver on the ground and act as the oil in the machinery -- the person who gets things done. There was a long delay, and I followed up by phone. There were apologies, and finally a letter was forthcoming. I picked that letter up with anticipation. I thought that this was going to be the answer to our problems. It was getting pretty close to the spring thaw and runoff time and the freshet, and it was a little bit nip and tuck whether we could still get it done, but I was glad to be getting the minister's response.

What I read was just typical bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo: "You've got to apply to this person and that person, and you've got to get permits." The message seemed to be: "You're not going to get any help from us, because we've made that a park." We were hoping for better from this minister and this new ministry, and if that's an indication of the sort of progress one can hope for from this ministry, then I think people probably won't be bothering.

Listening to the minister today rant and rave about political issues and challenging the opposition as if we're on the government side -- to say how we're going to deal with things as if we're government -- when in fact he's government and responsible for the mess this province finds itself in, I have less and less hope that he's actually going to deliver anything as the Minister Responsible for the Public Service -- and even that term will become reason for more public cynicism in this province.

Frankly, I'm really disappointed with the minister's performance in the one opportunity that I've seen him have to actually prove he can accomplish something for the people of British Columbia -- at least in my constituency. I'd like to ask him, on the record, if he's had any second thoughts about that, and whether he's willing to try a little harder to do something for my constituents along Westsyde Road.

Hon. M. Sihota: As I recollect that letter, the member was looking for some funding. Of course, that's our job as MLAs. An effective MLA knows how to cut through the red tape. But I understand the member is also new to this chamber, and that may have been part of the problem. If he has not had the opportunity to talk to the Kamloops water management office on Dalhousie Drive in Kamloops, then I'll make sure that I make the appropriate arrangements for him to go there and meet with staff to see if he can find a way through the maze.

K. Krueger: The minister isn't reading his mail. Even in the

preamble to my question, I mentioned that that ministry sent people to attend the scene of the problem with me, and so did the Ministry of Forests. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways were also cooperative. But nobody can get anything done with this government, because this government's all about process and paper-pushing and procedure and baloney, rather than results. If this minister is just a talker, just a figurehead, just a person to get up here and rant and rave until his voice breaks and he squeaks but he never really delivers anything, then maybe he shouldn't have a budget at all. Maybe we don't need this ministry. What's the point of it?

Can't the minister do better than offer to set up appointments for an MLA who he should know, if he's reading his mail or even listening to my question, has already had those appointments and has the cooperation of those people? But they are clearly bound up by a government where one ministry doesn't talk to another and it's questionable who's really in charge. And there's the Premier, who flies in like a seagull and dumps all over situations and squawks and flies away, leaving everybody wondering who's actually in charge.

Is this minister just a person appointed to enjoy a minister's salary, or is he actually capable of delivering some results on the ground, other than offering to arrange meetings?

[1610]

Hon. M. Sihota: Isn't that interesting. The member opposite says that he's having great difficulty getting the cooperation of the civil service on these matters. That might have something to do with some of the comments that he's made about civil servants. In fact, most recently the member said: "Fair warning to those bureaucrats: we are coming after them when we are government." He's going around publicly

[ Page 12910 ]

issuing threats to civil servants, telling them that they're coming after them -- all right? Hon. Chair, listen to this. That's what the hon. member says: "We are coming after them when we are government." If you want to attack the people who work for government and then, on the next side, ask for their cooperation, it seems to me that you'd better think twice about the kinds of attacks that you're levelling at civil servants.

You're saying: "We're coming after them when we are government." Perhaps the hon. member should indicate to the House why it was that he chose to issue those kinds of threats to civil servants. It may just explain why it is that the hon. member is having difficulty getting the cooperation of civil servants. In fact, the advice that I would give to his constituents . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Sihota: The advice that I would give . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has asked a question. The minister is answering. Would members please come to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: Mr. Puhallo just has a problem. He doesn't want his member of the Legislature to sit here and heckle away like that. He needs an explanation as to why it is that he's not getting help from the civil service. I would suggest that perhaps it has something to do with the kind of approach that the member opposite, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson -- his MLA -- takes towards civil servants when he says: "Fair warning to bureaucrats: we are coming after them when we are government." My advice to Mr.

Puhallo is that he should give a phone call to perhaps a little bit more effective MLA -- the member for Kamloops, the Minister of Environment -- and I'm sure she'll take the time to look at his file and see if we can work through it. Because she doesn't take the view that bureaucrats are people to go after.

H. Giesbrecht: I request leave to make an introduction.

Motion approved.

H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Chair, I have the honour to make an introduction on your behalf. Visiting us today in the gallery are some 30 visitors from New Frontier School in Silverdale, Washington. They're here to compare governments and learn a little bit about the local history and other applicable topics. They are accompanied by five adults and their teacher -- I hope I have the pronunciation correct -- Ms. K. Taasaas. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

C. Clark: I just want to follow up on the questions of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, because I think the minister deliberately misunderstood what he was asking. He was not asking for the cooperation of just the civil service; he was asking, more importantly, for the cooperation of the minister -- which is supposed to be the minister's bailiwick. That's supposed to be his job -- the guy that goes in and fixes all the problems wherever they may be, the minister responsible for the universe.

That's what he was asking for -- not for a piece of advice, just for a little bit of cooperation from the minister and a commitment that the minister will go in and use his powers of persuasion to get this problem solved. So I should think it would be an easy thing for the minister to stand up and say: "Yes, I'll fix it," or "No, I refuse."

[1615]

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make a number of points. Of course, I'm always interested in assisting members who have difficulty getting through the red tape of government -- no problem whatsoever. And I must confess, I was a little perplexed as to why the level of cooperation wasn't given to the member. And the more I pondered on it . . . . I thought it might have something to do with his attitude towards civil servants.

He's known to have said: "Fair warning to those bureaucrats: we are coming after them when we are government." Remarkable. This is from the same member -- if memory serves me right -- who at one time said in this chamber that if you can't get things done the first time, you whack them once; and if that doesn't work, then you whack them twice. Perhaps the hon. member is running into difficulties associated with his attitude toward civil servants.

That's why I would be happy to ask the other member from Kamloops to take the time to see if she can meet with Mr. Puhallo and exert her powers of persuasion to try to deal with the problem. But we do have this problem. The member opposite, the member who asked the question, earlier on talked about morale in the civil service. And it just seems to me that morale within the civil service must indeed suffer when members of this chamber publicly say: "Fair warning to bureaucrats: we are coming after them when we are government."

I don't know what the member was referring to. Are they intending to have massive downsizing within the government? Are they going to just willy-nilly fire civil servants? Are we going to again see the kind of chilling effect that we had in British Columbia when there were massive layoffs of public service workers?

The members opposite say a lot of nice things, a lot of platitudes to the public sector, but you know, the point isn't lost, I think, on most people in the public sector when members of the Liberal Party stand up saying: "Fair warning to bureaucrats: we are coming after them when we are government."

So I'm quite happy to assist Mr. Puhallo -- who obviously is dealing with an MLA who doesn't get support from the civil service, I expect, because he utters these kinds of words -- and arrange for him to meet with the other member from Kamloops to see whether or not there's an opportunity through that process to solve Mr. Puhallo's problem. Because he is clearly dealing with an MLA who's out to get bureaucrats, as he puts it.

C. Clark: You know, it is a little hard to take, to hear the minister stand up and offer advice to other members of this House about how to behave with respect to public servants. It's a little bit hard to take from this minister, a minister who was disgraced in his job and kicked out of cabinet because of the way he treated public servants. That's why he spent time languishing on the back benches. That's why the government was forced to kick him out of cabinet and into the penalty box for two years -- because of the way he treated public servants.

[ Page 12911 ]

For example, let's read some of the quotes from the report that the deputy to the Premier did on this minister's behaviour with respect to the public service. He said:

"In this case, I have found that all of the public servants involved acted with the utmost honesty and integrity. They maintained the highest possible degree of professionalism and respect for the office occupied by [the now minister], something that I regret to say was not reciprocated by Mr. Sihota. It is my view that his judgment failed him in this particular respect and that he did cross the . . . line of what constitutes fair behaviour in a politician's relationship with public servants.

He was overly aggressive in his language and challenged the truthfulness and legitimacy of information provided to him . . . . There are admittedly no . . . rules of conduct on these questions . . . . I am, however, of the opinion that some action is needed to confirm that this manner of dealing with public servants is not acceptable . . . . "

These are the findings of the deputy to the Premier on the conduct of this minister. The minister stands up, now that he's worked his way back into cabinet, and has the gall to offer advice to other members about how they should behave with respect to public servants -- a guy who was kicked out of cabinet, who was disgraced in British Columbia, precisely because he didn't know how to deal with public servants. Let me read you another quote:

[1620]

"My review of this situation and my discussions with officials involved and with [the member] compel me to address another aspect of this matter. In the interviews I undertook, a number of the officials referenced the aggressive manner of the telephone communications. Certain of the employees at motor carrier department felt intimidated, particularly since these communications emanated from an MLA and cabinet minister.

One of the reasons why so many officials became involved with this file was because of the discomfort felt by junior officials, given what they describe as aggressive language and the refusal to accept explanations of what had happened in the process. As a result, other more senior officials were asked to deal with the minister on the file."

This is the man who would stand up and offer advice to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson about how to treat public servants -- someone whose behaviour was so disgraceful that he got kicked out of cabinet, someone who was found in this kind of thuggery, kicked out of cabinet and spent two years on the back bench. Now that he's back in cabinet . . .

The Chair: Member, you're out of order.

C. Clark: . . . he will accuse us . . . . He will offer advice to the member for Kamloops . . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. Members on both sides of the House have taken liberties.

Interjection.

The Chair: I will call for order when things reach a point where it needs to be called. Conduct of members is not open for debate in estimates. We're dealing with the appropriations of the minister's office. I would ask members to continue in that vein.

C. Clark: Well, the one result that British Columbians can be thankful for as a result of this report is that the deputy came up with some recommendations about how to fix the problem -- how to make sure that guys like that don't treat public servants the way that he did, that people like that don't take the public interest and end up in situations like the one Mr. McArthur had to report on, how to make sure that people like that treat public servants with some respect, that people like that start treating public servants along some ethical guidelines for government. That's what this report recommended. It recommended some rules to fix the problems.

Now that he's been kicked out of cabinet because of the way he treated public servants and now that we have a report on why he got kicked out of cabinet -- because of the way he treated public servants -- and the report says how we can fix the problems so that we don't get ministers like that, who treat public servants that way . . . . Now that he's back in cabinet and responsible for those very same public servants, can he tell us: is he going to implement the recommendations that Doug McArthur made when he was doing his report on why this minister got kicked out of cabinet in the first place?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's my understanding that they have been implemented. But the member raises some points. Let me say that in response to that report, I did take the opportunity to apologize to staff. I thought that it was an appropriate request that Mr. McArthur made, and I acted upon that request.

May I also say that I would only ask the same of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. He says: "Fair warning to bureaucrats: we are coming after them when we are government." Now, I think that kind of an approach also warrants an apology.

Having said that, the answer to the question is that they've been implemented.

C. Clark: Well, good. So the minister . . . . In fact, I should end my quotes from this report with the final comment that Mr. McArthur made. He said: "In my view, if Mr. Sihota is considered for a cabinet appointment in the future" -- of course, granted at the time that no one thought that was ever likely to happen, but now that it has -- "it is essential that he first apologize to the public servants involved." So it's nice to hear that at least he's gone that far to make his way back into cabinet.

Bizarrely, the minister is now responsible for the same Motor Carrier Commission that he was found guilty of harassing by Mr. McArthur. He is, bizarrely, in charge of that. I understand that the minister has had some meetings with respect to a taxi industry strategy and the Motor Carrier Commission. Can the minister tell us the progress of this taxi industry study and what it's going to take into account?

[1625]

Hon. M. Sihota: Again, I don't know how the opposition does its research. But maybe they read the papers, and that's as far as it goes. I'm not responsible for the Motor Carrier Commission. The member is dead wrong. The provisions of the Motor Carrier Commission and the statute that governs them, as well as its policy and administration, fall under the purview of the Minister of Transportation, I believe. So perhaps the member would stand up at some point and acknowledge that she's in error on that point.

I have had some representations from people in that industry who wanted to meet with me to discuss a range of issues. I listened to what they had to say.

[ Page 12912 ]

C. Clark: Well, what is the taxi industry study, then?

An Hon. Member: Ask the minister.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the member's right: you should ask that question of the appropriate minister. But to the degree to which I am prepared to reflect back on that meeting, let me tell the member that I had a meeting with people in the industry to talk about their approach with regards to work that was being done with regards to industry. I'm sort of struck by the word "study." I'm not too sure if there was a study in place. I think they just came to reflect on their observations of their experiences.

C. Clark: Was the Minister of Transportation present at the meeting?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know if that's got anything to do with my estimates. And I honestly can't remember.

C. Clark: We established very early on in these estimates that the minister -- that part of his job as minister . . . . In fact, I think he introduced his estimates with the comment that he was the guy responsible for sticking his fingers into various ministries and fixing problems. That was part of his job on this economic A team that he's a part of -- going in and finding ways to kick-start the economy.

Presumably a taxi industry study might be part of that strategy. They're involved in the economy. It's a perfectly legitimate part of the estimates. I don't think the minister can dodge this one. Can the minister tell us what the nature of this taxi industry study is and what involvement he has in it? If the Minister of Transportation wasn't present at the meeting, what is the involvement of this minister in that study?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's common to meet with lobby groups who want to express opinions on matters of government policy; I do that daily. The member, I know, has FOI'd my daily timer, so she knows better than I what date that occurred. But in any event, I met with them because they wanted to be heard. I listened to what they had to say. That is my recollection of about as far as it went. I will have to check, and I'll be happy to ascertain and advise the member later as to whether or not the Minister of Highways was there.

C. Clark: Well, it appears to me . . . . The minister's right: I apparently do know more about this than he does. It was January 22; the minister met regarding a taxi industry study. By the minister's standards, based on the rest of his daytimer it was an unusually long meeting. I cannot understand why it would be referred to in his agenda as a taxi industry study if there wasn't a government initiative being discussed. When you look at the rest of the daytimer, and the minister is just meeting with lobby groups or interest groups, it just says: "Meeting with interest groups. Meeting with stakeholders." This says: "Meeting re taxi industry study."

Is the minister saying that there is no study ongoing in the government that he is at all aware of, involved in or has had any meetings about that could be characterized as a taxi industry study?

Hon. M. Sihota: Certainly I'm not involved in any of those matters.

C. Clark: Did none of those matters come up at his meeting, then?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me be really clear here, because the member is sort of making certain assumptions. As I recall that meeting, representatives of the industry wanted to come and meet with me to discuss their concerns about the industry and canvass with me a whole range of concerns that they had. It's no different than what happens at any of the other meetings.

[1630]

I'm not too sure why it references "study," but I'm not involved in any study. Any studies of the industry that would be happening would fall within the purview of the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I don't know if the Minister of Transportation and Highways was there at that meeting. It wouldn't be unusual for him also to hear from people within the industry.

And in terms of the length of time, I'm a little surprised that the member says that there's a large allocation of time. I'm not sure if that's always accurately reflected in terms of the length of the meeting, but from my recollection of the meeting, it might have been maybe 30 minutes. If the member says that it was longer, then my sense is tha