2000 Legislative Session: 4th 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, JUNE 29, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 20

[ Page 16971 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

C. Clark: A surprise guest today, an old acquaintance of mine and of the member for Prince George-Omineca, Tony Fogarassy, is joining us today. He's the new legal counsel for the Technical University of British Columbia. I hope the House will make him welcome.

If you'll indulge me, hon. Speaker, I have one more introduction to make. Also joining us today in the gallery is one of B.C.'s great foster parents -- a great voice on behalf of foster parents -- Delphine Charmley. I hope the House will make her welcome as well.

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: In the gallery are three very interesting young people with whom I had lunch today. They are representatives from the Youth in Care Network. They are Ryan Noseworthy, Michelle Kim and Patricia Kotovich, and I would wish the House to join me in making them very welcome to this great occasion, this great place.

R. Coleman: Visiting his afternoon from Walnut Grove Secondary School in my riding are a teacher, George Kozlovic, a student, Pat Burke, and Chris Greerizan, another student. They are here today out on the front steps to lobby the government regarding the Anderson's Brigade Trail park. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to introduce some visitors in the gallery today -- first my executive assistant Dwayne Hartle and his partner Shirley Dorais. Joining them today are Ernest and Aurelia Hartle, Dwayne's parents. They're celebrating their fiftieth anniversary here in B.C. They've come from Leroy, Saskatchewan; they're retracing their honeymoon trip they took 50 years ago by rail by taking the Rocky Mountain Railtour from Calgary to Vancouver. Would the House please congratulate them and welcome them to the House today.

R. Masi: It's my very great pleasure today to introduce my son Stewart Masi. He's been involved in politics since he was a little boy. He's a big boy now, and he's here visiting today. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: Today we have in the gallery and are honouring secondary students from British Columbia who have won gold, silver and bronze medals at the sixth annual Canadian Skills Competition held in Quebec City. It is an event that actually brings together industry, schools and post-secondary institutions, resulting in a close match between school programs, industry standards and requirements. Since it began, the B.C. students have competed successfully on the national level, and some of them have gone on to the World Skills Competition.

[1410]

This year British Columbia was third in the number of medals that it took home to its home province. We have nine of those 11 secondary students in our gallery today. I'm going to name the students and ask the students to stand as I read out their names and then, at the end, ask the assembly to recognize them when they're all standing.

The winner of the medal in the field of cabinetmaking is Rob Sabo from Port Moody Secondary School, who's here today with his sister. The medal winner for automotive service is Ryan Lomax from Penticton Secondary School. The winner in the field of electronics is Brendan Moran from Port Moody Secondary in Port Moody. The winner in culinary arts for the second year in a row, actually, is Willi Pohl from Carson Graham Secondary School in North Vancouver. And a medal winner for job interview skills is Arun Chettiar from Eric Hamber Secondary School in Vancouver.

Two medal winners in computer animation are Steve Mumford and Eric Larsson from Nanaimo District Secondary School. A medal winner for carpentry for the second year in a row is Chad Buhr from Caledonia Senior Secondary in Terrace. The medal winner for the principles of technology is Vu Lee from the Abbotsford Career Technical Centre , who is here today with his mother.

The achievements of these students are a testimony not only to their own hard work -- and that is very much what it's about -- but to the excellent standards and varied programs offered by their schools. I would now ask the assembly to recognize the British Columbia Olympians of technologies and trades -- welcome and congratulations.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Following on the heels of my colleague the Minister of Education, I'm proud to introduce to the House today two of the post-secondary students from this province who went to the same competition and won silver medals. There were five in total, but two of them join us in the gallery today. Faith Dahl, who was awarded a silver in forestry and is attending Kwantlen University College, proudly told me over lunch that she was the grandmother of the competition, having children of her own who were older than the secondary students who were attending as well in Quebec City.

She's very proud of her accomplishment, and so she should be. As well, Ken MacKay, who got his silver in welding, attended the College of the Rockies in Cranbrook. So I ask all my colleagues in this chamber to join me in making them welcome today.

Hon. Speaker, I have a second set of introductions to make today. It's my pleasure to introduce to the House the Year 2000 Parliament Buildings Players. For the third year in a row they'll be portraying historical characters and bringing to life some of the history of British Columbia, in this program. This is a program which enhances guided tours of the parliament buildings and is a youth employment initiative aimed at providing experience to young student actors.

From July 1 to Labour Day, Meg Roe, currently studying at the University of Victoria, will portray Queen Victoria; Greg Landucci from Victoria will become Sir James Douglas; and Jamie Lawson from Richmond will be our second Premier Amor de Cosmos. From the northern community of Smithers, Devon Pipars will be Nellie Cashman, the miners' angel, and Desmond Davies, who recently settled in Victoria, will portray a Scottish stonemason. Jeffrey Kluge from Sidney will step into the character of Francis Rattenbury, the architect who designed these buildings. I am sure all of the members of this House join me in making them welcome.

J. Wilson: In the galleries today is Sue Maile. Sue is a constituent of mine and a very good friend, and I ask that the House extend a hearty welcome to her.

[1415]

B. Penner: A couple of weeks ago a Rotary Club in Chilliwack held a fundraising dinner and auction. One of the

[ Page 16972 ]

items up at the auction was a tour of the Legislature and lunch here at the dining room at my expense. Today the successful bidders are here taking advantage of their auction item, and I'm pleased to welcome to the chamber Corey and Nancy Dreveney from Chilliwack. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Krueger: With us in the precincts today are my very good friends Pat and Byron Hill, who met and married here in Victoria, became wealth generators and big employers in Kamloops, and regrettably now are economic refugees to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. But they're here to visit us, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

The Speaker: Members, on behalf of Sean Edwards, legislative intern, I'd like to welcome his parents, two longtime residents of Pitt Meadows, Mel and Lidia Edwards, to the House today. Mel's mother Thelma is accompanying them. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

BALANCED BUDGET ACT

Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Balanced Budget Act.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, this bill is the third landmark piece of fiscal legislation introduced this session. We have introduced and adopted the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, which makes our budgets and budgeting processes the most open and transparent in Canada. We have introduced . . .

The Speaker: Minister, could you move first reading?

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . . a made-in-B.C. tax-on-income system which delinks our tax system from Ottawa's so we can see in a clear and transparent way . . . .

An Hon. Member: You have to move first reading.

Hon. P. Ramsey: My apologies. I move first reading of Bill 28.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I'll take the motion. The motion is first reading.

[1420]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37

Evans

Doyle

McGregor

Sawicki

Kwan

Lali

Hammell

Pullinger

Bowbrick

Mann Brewin

Boone

Orcherton

Calendino

Zirnhelt

Randall

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Smallwood

Miller

MacPhail

Dosanjh

Petter

Lovick

Priddy

Ramsey

G. Wilson

Farnworth

Waddell

Stevenson

Gillespie

Streifel

Walsh

Kasper

G. Clark

Goodacre

Weisgerber

NAYS -- 34

Whittred

Hansen

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

L. Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Dalton

McKinnon

Masi

Roddick

J. Wilson

Barisoff

van Dongen

Symons

Thorpe

Krueger

J. Reid

Coleman

Stephens

Hawkins

Hogg

Nebbeling

Weisbeck

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. Now that we've got that out of the way, I'll start over.

This is the third landmark piece of fiscal legislation introduced this session. We have introduced and adopted the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, which makes our budget and our budgeting process the most open and transparent in Canada.

We have introduced a made-in-B.C. tax-on-income system, which delinks our system from Ottawa. British Columbians can now, in a clear and transparent way, see for the first time exactly how much they contribute to their provincial government. And we've reduced taxes for all British Columbians, particularly for those who need relief the most: low- and middle-income families.

Now, hon. Speaker, the third bill: the Balanced Budget Act. In drafting this bill, we drew on the experiences of other provinces and took the best features of similar legislation from across the country. But we have gone further. We have also introduced unique provisions that illustrate our government's commitment to accountability in managing the province's finances. This bill will make law the requirement to meet or exceed progressively lower deficit targets and balance the budget in 2004 and every year thereafter -- not over a cycle, but each and every year.

Hon. Speaker, this bill has teeth. If government's targets are not met, unless an emergency or unexpected circumstance imperils the health or safety of British Columbians or revenues decline by more than half a billion dollars, a 20 percent cut in ministerial pay for 12 months for all cabinet ministers will be implemented immediately. Pay cuts for ministers will take effect the first time a quarterly report or other public statement indicates that the legal deficit requirements may not be met in a fiscal year. This provision will make cabinet ministers in British Columbia the most accountable in Canada.

[1425]

Like every other provincial balanced-budget law, the Balanced Budget Act sets out conditions where the legal deficit requirements may be waived for a fiscal year. But unlike any other law, B.C.'s act requires the government to recall the Legislature and allow for debate on the emergency or revenue decline.

This bill is this government's commitment to ensuring that B.C.'s fiscal house is in order and stays in order. Balanced

[ Page 16973 ]

legislation is what the public wants; balanced-budget legislation is what this government, under the leadership of our Premier, wants. And all stages of debate will be considered a matter of confidence.

I move that Bill 28 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Bill 28 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

BALANCED-BUDGET LEGISLATION

G. Farrell-Collins: Before the former Premier leaves the chamber, I thought he'd wait around to hear about a little bit of the history of balanced-budget legislation in British Columbia. In fact, British Columbia was one of the very first provinces in the country to introduce balanced-budget legislation. In fact, about six months before another election -- the election that took place in 1991 -- the Taxpayer Protection Act was introduced in this House. It did three main things. It froze taxes, it required the budget to be balanced over a five-year cycle, and every Minister of Finance was required to present a debt reduction plan.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to note who voted in favour of that first balanced-budget act: the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, the member for Nanaimo, the member for Prince George-Mount Robson and the member for Surrey-Whalley, to name a few. But right after the 1991 election those very same members . . . . One of the first things they did was vote to repeal that legislation.

How stupid does the Premier think the people of British Columbia are -- that they would be fooled once again by the NDP?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The people of British Columbia are wise enough to know that that opposition, after introducing a private member's bill to balance the budget, opposed the piece of legislation without even reading it in this House. That's how ridiculous the opposition is.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has a supplemental question.

G. Farrell-Collins: When the Premier had the temerity and the bravery to throw down the gauntlet and say it was a vote of confidence, you bet we're voting against it. And if he ever gets brave enough to throw down the gauntlet and call an election, the public will be voting against that government.

Let's go back in history a little bit. Maybe our actors in the gallery can help us a little bit. In 1992, Bill 3 . . . . Almost the first thing this government did after that election was repeal the balanced-budget legislation that was then in place. In fact, 24 members of the New Democrat caucus that sit opposite . . . . One of the first votes they took in this House was to repeal the balanced-budget legislation that was then in place.

[1430]

I should correct myself, because the current Premier missed that vote. It was another meeting he didn't attend. How does the Premier . . . ? How do any of the NDP members opposite expect the people in British Columbia to take them seriously, given their disastrous and deceitful record over the last nine years?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is a new government under a new leadership under a new Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is a new government . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Order, members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Take your seat, please. Members, the question was listened to; I expect the answer to be given the same attention. I'd like to have the Premier answer the question.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I was saying, this is a new government under a new leadership under the new Premier. That's why the opposition sits there with faces glum, absolutely glum. And, hon. Speaker, they vote against the piece of legislation without even looking at it, because they are more interested in politics. They're not interested in the public interest in British Columbia, which we are.

M. de Jong: Yes, I'm distraught.

Here's another blast from the past. It's 1991, and a soon-to-be-decimated Social Credit government has brought in its version of balanced-budget law. This is what the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the former Premier, had to say: "This bill represents nothing more than an empty election ploy designed to convince British Columbians that the government has changed its ways. It represents a deathbed repentance which will fool absolutely nobody in British Columbia." Remarkable. If he gets royalties for the number of times I'll repeat that statement, he can pay his own legal bills.

NDPers didn't believe in balanced-budget legislation then; they don't believe it now. They flip; they flop. My question to the Premier is: after nine consecutive deficit budgets, does he really believe that British Columbians are going to believe his government's deathbed conversion?

I'm melting; I'm melting. I'm perplexed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the opposition should feel the heat, I can tell you that. They should feel the heat.

Hon. Speaker, there has been a change in government in British Columbia. There is a new direction of government in British Columbia. There is a new leadership of government in British Columbia. There is a new Premier in British Columbia.

The opposition shows that it is stuck in the past. The approach has changed on this side of the House. There is a

[ Page 16974 ]

new direction. On the opposite side, hon. Speaker, they are stuck in the past, and they continue to remain unchanged. That is why they continue to play politics and talk about what happened nine years ago, not what's happening today.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.

[1435]

M. de Jong: That past that the Premier doesn't want to talk about includes him voting in favour of nine consecutive deficit budgets. If flip-flopping were an Olympic sport, we've just seen a gold medal performance, Mr. Speaker. This is like the double-quad flip-floperoo. We've never seen one of those in competition, have we, Geoff?

An Hon. Member: No.

M. de Jong: No. There was the Deputy Premier's triple klutz in the Ferries competition earlier this year, but that's nothing to what we've seen here today. Listen to what . . . .

An Hon. Member: There's the "I'm not responsible for the WCB . . . . "

M. de Jong: Employment and Investment minister: "Balanced-budget legislation is a crock," Mr. Speaker -- a few years ago. Women's Equality minister -- let's go way back to April 11 of the year 2000, when she said: "They talk about balanced-budget legislation, which is a euphemism for gutting the public service."

Maybe the Premier could tell us this: is there a secret facility out there somewhere, where NDP members get sent and trained to talk about balanced-budget legislation while they keep a straight face? Is that some special training they get?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, not that I am one to reciprocate in kind, but I would like to know where the hon. member . . . what school he went to when he flip-flopped on referendums on aboriginal treaties.

We had a debate in this House this morning, and I said to the hon. opposition leader: "Yes, we have changed." This is this legislation, and this new approach is born out of a sober second look at the issues in British Columbia.

And I say that because there is a difference. They talk about gutting -- gutting public service. It was the Leader of the Opposition who said he will decrease the public service by at least 5 percent and roll back salaries of the public service. He said that in the last campaign, hon. Speaker.

Let me also tell you, hon. Speaker, and let me tell the opposition that the bill that they introduced as a private member's bill in 1998 provides bonuses to public employees for cutting services in British Columbia. That's the distinction. We would balance the budget in British Columbia, but we would have our values of social responsibility, of compassion, of economic and social justice intact. We'll go to the campaign, and we will win the next election, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a further supplemental question.

M. de Jong: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier might be able to sell that bill of goods to a caucus that is terrified about the prospect of facing the electorate, but I'll tell you: there's no one out there in British Columbia that's going to believe a word of what he just said.

Let's see what else the NDP flip-floperoo includes, from the annals of parliamentary history. The Government House Leader had some pretty profound things to say in 1991, when he was confronted by very similar legislation. "All I want you to explain to me," he asked the government, "is how we can construe this change in policy, which directly contradicts past practices of your government."

Okay, Mr. Speaker, the Premier doesn't want to answer my question straight up. Here's one from his own Government House Leader. All I want you to explain to me, Mr. Premier, is how we can construe this change in policy, which directly contradicts your past practices -- nine consecutive deficit budgets that you still haven't apologized to British Columbians for.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, we admit that we have changed. I have been saying that to the people of British Columbia. I campaigned, hon. Speaker . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

[1440]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I campaigned on the platform of fiscal responsibility during the leadership campaign. This is part of that. We have thought about this issue. We have deliberated over it, and we have deliberately . . . . To make sure that we reconnect with the hopes and values of British Columbians, we have brought in this piece of legislation. What kind of opposition is that, hon. Speaker, that says for nine straight years that they want a balanced-budget law? They introduce one in 1998, and then they vote against one without even looking at the piece of legislation.

G. Plant: Well, I want to read from a portion of the Premier's statement announcing his candidacy for the leadership of the New Democratic Party on November 7, 1999. The quote is this: "I won't insult British Columbians by standing here today to say I will guarantee you a balanced budget by a specific day in a specific month in a specific year."

So my question for the Premier is simple: will he stand here and insult British Columbians by saying that he will guarantee us a balanced budget by a specific day in a specific month or in a specific year? Why should anyone believe anything he says?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I said . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Plant: That was November, and this is June.

The Speaker: Will the member for Richmond-Steveston come to order, please.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I said we thought about this issue long and hard. I said I campaigned on the platform

[ Page 16975 ]

of fiscal responsibility for the leadership of this great movement and this great party. And I said, since I wasn't the Premier and I wasn't the Minister of Finance, I did not have all of the information at my disposal. I said . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. The members will come to order. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi will come to order.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I said that I wouldn't insult British Columbians by putting a fixed date on balancing the budget. But I became the Premier. I looked at the issues. I thought about it long and hard. It wasn't an easy decision. It is a difficult, complex issue. And I decided that this is something that is so important to the life of politics in British Columbia that we're going to put a pledge in law to make sure that we balance the budget in British Columbia -- unlike the thoughtless reaction of the opposition in not even considering the legislation and voting against it without even reading it.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Evans: I ask leave to table a report.

The Speaker: Is there leave, members, to table a report?

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to table the Ministry of Fisheries annual report for 1998-99.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to table the report for the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for the year ending March 31, 2000.

Hon. D. Lovick: I too have the honour to table a report, this one from the B.C. Treaty Commission for the year 2000.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm pleased to table the final portion of the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Quality of Condominium Construction in British Columbia, entitled "The Renewal of Trust in Residential Construction,"

part 2,

chapter 2, and accompanying documents.

Hon. I. Waddell: I have the honour to table three reports. The first two are the annual reports for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. Secondly, I have the very real honour to table a report by Bernie Pascall entitled "Eliminating Violence in Hockey," assisted by Sharon White. I'd like to thank Bernie and Sharon White for this report. I table it now.

[1445]

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Multiculturalism and the Public Service. In this chamber I call second reading debate on Bill 25, the Secure Care Act.

SECURE CARE ACT

(second reading)

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: It's a pleasure for me to rise on this occasion to speak to open debate on second reading of Bill 25, the secure care legislation.

One of the central goals of the Ministry for Children and Families is to encourage the healthy development of all children and youth. In order to do this, we have a broad network of programs and services across this whole province. Overall they work pretty well, but one group of young people continues to fall through the cracks. They are among the most vulnerable children in this province. I'm talking about a small but significant number of children whose own behaviour is putting their health, their futures and their very lives at risk -- kids who reject the help available, the help they so desperately need.

We have no authority to force them to get support or treatment. That leaves all of us -- families, friends, service providers, government and society -- powerless to help them. It's not enough for us to sit back and sit by and watch their young lives be devastated by street life or other forms of self-abuse. Bill 25 will change that for the first time in British Columbia by providing a constructive way to intervene in the lives of youth, many of whom have problems with hard-core addictions or serious involvement in the sex trade.

In this legislation we have tried hard to balance the needs, the rights and responsibilities of young people, the roles of parents in ensuring the safety of their children and the role of government in providing necessary supports and services.

[1450]

This legislation is primarily aimed at youth aged 12 to 16. The purpose of the legislation is to provide, when other less intrusive measures are unavailable or inadequate, a means for assessing and assisting children who, first of all, have an emotional or behavioral condition that presents a high risk of serious harm or injury to themselves and, secondly, who are unable or unwilling to take steps to reduce that risk. We are indeed talking about extreme cases where the powerful grip of their addiction or their pimp keeps them on the streets and robs them of the likelihood of ever reaching their full potential.

To illustrate this point I've got several examples, circumstances where parents and service providers have not been successful in reaching their children. A boy aged 14 is having difficulty in school. He has a history of setting fires and frequently uses alcohol, marijuana and IV drugs. His friends are older males, 18 to 25, and it is suspected he is being groomed for child pornography. He may be HIV-positive but refuses to see a doctor.

Or a girl aged 13 is being sexually exploited. Her pimp is known to be violent, and she is frequently seen with marks and bruises. She refuses to make a statement to police about the source of the injuries. She is extremely underweight and is suspected of having hepatitis C, which is compounded by heroin use.

[ Page 16976 ]

These children are known to police and service agencies, yet no action can be initiated under any existing legislation. Historically, voluntary services involvement has failed. We face the danger of losing these kids forever.

Recognizing the need for another option, a better way of helping these children, the ministry started a consultative process back in 1998. I want to acknowledge the contribution that was made by the chair of that secure care working group, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. The working group included such members as Diane Sowden of the Children of the Street Society. It included service providers; it included police; it included people concerned with civil liberties and human rights. That group reported out in the fall of 1998 with a range of possible options. Subsequent to that more than 200 groups and individuals shared their comments on the various proposals.

One of the questions that was put to the secure care working group was to consider the option of secure care for those cases where nothing less will protect kids from themselves. An overwhelming majority said yes, British Columbia does need a secure care option, and that consensus is the basis for the bill that is before this House today.

So how does it work? How is it going to work? First of all, the child's parent or guardian or a new official called the director of secure care would make an application to a secure care board, requesting a period of secure care to assess and assist a child at serious risk of self-harm. This would be for as short a period of time as possible but would ensure safety, a complete assessment and the development of a plan for assistance. Board members would have special training and expertise in matters relating to high-risk children, assessment and intervention and human rights.

In each and every case the question put to the board has to respond to four basic criteria. First of all, they would need to ensure that the child or youth did in fact face a high risk of harm from their behaviour. Second, they would have to confirm that the young person was unwilling or unable to take steps to reduce that harm voluntarily. Third, they would have to be confident that no other less intrusive measure was available or adequate to reduce that risk. Finally, they would have to be satisfied that a period of secure care would indeed be in the best interests of the child.

[1455]

Where all four conditions were met, the board could grant a certificate ordering that the child be held for the period of time necessary to complete assessment and planning -- never more than 30 days. In exceptional cases, where the child still faced considerable risk of harm after the 30-day period, the board could grant a maximum of two 30-day extensions to that original term.

In emergency situations -- those involving the most extreme circumstances and where the risk of severe harm is imminent -- a child could be brought into secure care by the director of secure care for up to 72 hours without prior approval of the board. But the board would have to review the case as soon as physically possible, and no child would be kept for more than 72 hours without the board's consideration of all their possible options.

We are acutely aware of the impact this legislation has on the rights of children and youth to make their own decisions about their lives, so we've built in an extensive list of safeguards. For example, every child and youth who is the subject of a hearing will be notified of his or her rights, including the right to legal counsel and the right to express his or her views. Any matter decided by the board in the child's absence may be reconsidered with his or her input.

All youth served under this legislation will have a comprehensive assessment and intervention plan developed, with copies of these documents being filed with the children's commissioner. Again, the child, youth and family advocate will be notified of each and every secure care hearing.

But in addition to these precautions, we would also enshrine a set of rights for youth within the legislation guaranteeing some pretty basic situations for them: to be fed, clothed and sheltered according to reasonable standards; to be free from corporal punishment; to be informed about their intervention and assistance plans and to be consulted about significant decisions affecting them; to privacy and discussions with family, with their guardian, a lawyer, the child, youth and family advocate, the children's commissioner and other public officials; to participate in social, recreational and religious activities; to receive guidance and encouragement; to maintain their cultural heritage, and to receive guidance and assistance to address the risk that led to their detainment.

This legislation has been several years in the making. We have consulted broadly with parents, youth, civil liberties groups, service providers, community organizations and experts here in B.C. and in provinces such as Alberta, which have had significant experience in this area. But their legislation is not the same as this.

I want to stress that the vast majority of youth can and do get the help they need through the network of voluntary services and supports. This bill is only intended to help those few who are at the most extreme risk of self-harm. It is a service of last resort.

We expect that it will cost approximately $10.6 million a year to implement this legislation, plus a capital cost for additional facilities. We expect to house no more than 20 youth in secure care throughout the province at any given time. I would also like to add that as part of this new legislation, we would further enhance the existing network of safe housing, addiction treatment and other services already available for high-risk youth in British Columbia.

This bill is just the latest step in our ongoing commitment to meet the needs of high-risk youth. For example, in the last two years we've invested more than $9 million in new youth addiction services, more than tripling the number of treatment beds available in communities right across this province. We've put more outreach workers out there on the streets. We've developed a range of safe housing options for youth who choose voluntarily to leave the sex trade. And we've amended the Child, Family and Community Service Act to allow for restraining orders against pimps and others who sexually exploit our children.

We've developed youth agreements to give us a way to work with kids constructively to help them get their lives back on track. We're boosting the number of front-line staff in communities across the province by nearly 200 full-time-equivalents. All of these measures are helping to make a positive difference for youth at risk. But as I mentioned earlier, under existing legislation, we still are not able to help some of those young people who are most at risk. That's why we're moving ahead with secure care legislation. Let me assure you, we are moving forward very carefully.

[1500]

[ Page 16977 ]

As I conclude, let's consider that youth is indeed a time of transition. Young people need to explore the world, find out where they fit and how they can contribute. And they make mistakes. We all do; we all did. It's a basic part of growing up. Most kids have tools and resources. They need to learn from their mistakes and to move successfully into the adult world. But that group of high-risk kids who are on the street, who are addicted, exploited and no longer capable of defending themselves -- these young people need extra support. And, Mr.

Speaker, it's up to us to make sure that that support is available when and where they need it. We all know that life on the street, life on drugs or life in the sex trade can mean a young life wasted. And for those kids secure care can potentially open up a whole new world of opportunity. I look forward to providing that opportunity through this legislation in the months ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading of this bill.

L. Reid: I too rise to engage in the debate on Secure Care Act, Bill 25. My first question: what is meant by the term "secure care"? Will the focus be on care or on containment? The answer to the question lies in the preparation and the implementation of the Secure Care Act.

Allow me to put my questions on the record. Was there a continuum of service available prior to the introduction of this bill? The answer is no. Will there be a continuum of service following third reading? No. The implementation of these programs could take years, and hon. Speaker, this government has had years -- nine years, to be exact -- and hasn't taken the initiative to move on this very critical piece: implementation of a range of programs and services.

Staffing issues are a huge consideration for this ministry. Vacancy rates across the province rest at 40 percent in the north and 20 percent in other areas. This becomes an issue for this act, when we discuss plans of care. Last year only 8 percent of plans of care were found to be adequate. This year 20 percent of plans of care are found to be adequate. That's one in five. The goal for the ministry is only for 50 percent of plans of care to be adequate next year -- 50 percent; half the children. The ministry has a sense that half the children having an adequate plan of care is appropriate.

The Secure Care Act will now require care plans after 72 hours. A lovely objective -- however, how likely is it? How likely is it that care plans can be completed in 72 hours, when we have countless examples of inadequate and nonexistent plans of care after months, and sometimes years, of being in care? Is this government embarking on another hollow promise? Is this government promising to parents a program that they will be unable to deliver?

There are parents in this province who have heartfelt anguish over their young people who are in dire circumstances today in the downtown east side and downtown south and other regions of this province -- parents' anguish that should be felt very strongly by every single member of this Legislature. That is the anguish we are attempting to mitigate today, if you will, by the introduction of this bill.

I need to be clear, as does my caucus, that this bill actually responds to that need. I have spoken many times of the need for a continuum of care, a continuum of services that are available in a timely manner. The timeliness is critical. Access doesn't mean: "Join the queue -- you too can be on the wait-list." Parents already know the frustration of waiting for service.

[1505]

The Wait List Initiative, undertaken by Penny Kellett and Jim McDermott in this province today, is a direct result of parental frustration. We already have countless thousands of parents waiting for service that this government has not addressed. There are today tens of thousands of kids waiting for service -- many thousands in British Columbia. Six thousand, I believe, is the ministry calculation. Jim McDermott and Penny Kellett experienced the anguish parents feel when their child is awaiting service, sometimes for months and years at a time. Under this act the government is stating that high-risk kids will have the services they need.

But will they? Are we moving to a preventive detention model, or will there be services available? I ask that question most sincerely, hon. Speaker, because that will determine the success of Bill 25. If there are not services, it is simply a containment model. The focus must be on care.

Many parents are skeptical, and justifiably so. These parents have waited for years for service -- many, many since these children were very young. And these are the same kids, hon. Speaker. These are not problems that arose yesterday. For lots of these kids that the minister outlined in her remarks, there were signs along the way that they would need additional supports, additional resources. These same kids often had those early needs ignored by this government. So to somehow suggest that we wait until we're in crisis mode before we intervene . . . .

This government would have done far more had they agreed to implement, in year one of their mandate, in 1991, an early intervention model. We would not be facing some of the issues we're facing today if there had been a legitimate plan in place. That plan doesn't exist today. This is, again, crisis management.

So again, my point, hon. Speaker: these parents have waited for service before. I'm hoping they will not continue to wait. The services have not been provided in the past. This is a call to this government to ensure that if they pass this bill, the promise is fulfilled. They are today, by the introduction of this bill, making a promise to parents that that resource will be in place. There is no greater promise than providing a service to a child in the province of British Columbia. This government cannot afford, at this juncture, to break that promise.

Parents in this province have experienced years of denial of service at the hands of this government -- frankly, thousands of examples over the past nine years. Can parents today have any confidence that this time it will be different? If the minister is looking for examples, she only needs to look to Surrey, to the infant wait-list, the folks today waiting for speech-language therapy, for occupational therapy, for physiotherapy, for counselling, for behavioral interventions -- the list is endless. There are opportunities for this government to do the right thing that have not been taken to date.

Can the minister deliver on the promise of care within the Secure Care Act, or is the focus only on containment? Will the kids of this province be subject to preventive detention? Those questions need to be answered.

We're prepared to lend our support to 72 hours if treatment and a plan of care are the result. Containing children against their will beyond 72 hours has the potential to be a Pandora's box. The information we received at the briefing just this morning suggests that this bill should only apply to 20 or 30 young people at any time. The closest Canadian

[ Page 16978 ]

jurisdiction to deal with secure care is Alberta, and in Alberta today there are 343 young people in secure care. That, again, is information provided to me within the last hour.

On another aspect of this bill, the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner has been abundantly clear: this act, in good conscience, should not proceed with the questionable privacy provisions intact. He has said very clearly that this bill should not proceed with the questionable privacy provisions intact. The minister should be advised that her ministry should look to support amendments to this bill by deleting the offending sections. That is the best advice of the day.

I trust that this minister will listen to the advice. Her failure to respect the right of young people with respect to their own information will only damage this process further. These children are at risk from personal harm and circumstance. This bill should not be about further damaging the rights of children and youth in this province.

[1510]

This is a bill which would absolutely benefit from public input and clarification. Perhaps this bill could be the first bill to move to committee stage during a fall session of this Legislature. This would allow for improvements to the bill, and there is no one today who is saying that the bill could not be improved. In fact, I think the minister has put on the order paper the first amendment to the bill. At the briefing this morning ministry staff indicated that amendments to the privacy provisions of this bill would fall on fertile ground, but not at this time. There is simply not enough time to prepare the amendments for this committee debate.

I was hoping that since this government has been in office for nine years, and in possession of a secure care working group report for more than two years, sufficient time was available to prepare this bill properly. The minister's comments of just six weeks ago that the notion of secure care was way too controversial speaks to the fact that the actual drafting of the bill did not receive its due. Six weeks ago the ministry wasn't proceeding; today we have a bill.

We have seen unclear legislation before this House in the past, which often results in mistakes being made and numerous amendments in legislation based on faulty information. I would submit that we will see amendments to the bill so that this legislation is actually workable.

This is a delicate balancing act -- the infringement of a child's rights to ensure their personal safety. I have numerous questions regarding the separate privacy provisions for this act and concerns as well about the possibility of detention without representation. The creation of a new bureaucracy . . . . I for one lean towards family court judges to make these determinations. I am not favouring at all the creation of a new bureaucracy within government. It's not something this government does particularly well. We have a system before us.

The minister mentioned earlier the safeguards for the kids. She indicated that they have the right to counsel. We all know that the right to counsel does not always result in legal representation. We already have enormous wait-lists through the Legal Aid Society. We already have enormous opportunities to fund the system that have simply not been met. There is demand there today that is not met. Is this minister suggesting that these individuals will move to the front of the line? That would be an interesting thing for us to learn.

This bill has flaws. The delicate balance required has not been struck. Instead of a new bureaucracy, why not have these applications come before a family court judge? These very skilful people make these judgments now. Are we prepared to give someone outside the judicial process the right to lock kids up? Is there a workable appeal process in place? Both these issues have not been adequately addressed. Judges have the ability to order resources for kids. There is accountability in the court process. An appointed board will not obtain a similar level of accountability.

Our concerns have been noted. We will do all we can to arrive at a legislative product which works. Our children deserve the very best society has to offer. I for one believe that we all have an enormous obligation to safeguard the next generation. However fledgling Bill 25 turns out to be, the official opposition will stand in support. Our focus is on the care of our kids, and we are trusting that this ministry will rise to the challenge. There is no greater undertaking before us today.

If this sentiment had been shared by the government opposite, I think we would have seen before us a flawless bill, one that had been well constructed, well thought-out, with enormous accountability in place. It's a fledgling bill. The kids of this province deserve better.

B. McKinnon: I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 25, the Secure Care Act, 2000. I will be supporting this bill, but I have some reservations about the way this government drew up this very important piece of legislation. I don't believe the government when they say that this bill took years in the making. It wasn't that long ago that government said that it would not be drafting this bill, and suddenly -- approximately six weeks later -- we have Bill 25. No, I think it was six weeks ago that the government decided to go ahead with this bill of secure care. So now we have it before us.

And that bothers me, because this is such an important bill. I have seen the way this government has handled previous legislation.

[1515]

You only have to look at legislation such as the Forest Renewal Act and ask yourself: do we need forest renewal? The answer, of course, is yes. Then ask yourself: do we need secure care? And I believe the answer to that is also yes. When we look at what this government has done to forest renewal, you can understand why I have a hard time believing that this government is capable of getting legislation right. We find bills coming back constantly for amendments because they didn't get it right the first time.

When we bring forth legislation that is as important as this bill, we need to make sure that everything is going to work in the best interests of our children. I don't believe that we should be pushing for legislation just because an election is looming.

There are two types of kids that this bill will focus on. The first is kids between ages 12 and 16, who are mainly young girls in prostitution. The second type is kids who are on drugs and going downhill very fast. These are not kids that have any type of criminal record. What this bill does is to give this government more power and responsibility than they have now over our children. I don't have any confidence in this government, and that is why I worry about giving them more control over children, even though they say they are trying to

[ Page 16979 ]

protect them in dangerous situations. Yes, we have a duty to protect our children. I don't believe children have a right to do drugs or prostitution.

I find three problems with this bill. The first is the privacy issue. This government has allowed this ministry to be less accountable to the public than any other government agency, because it severely diminishes the access and privacy rights of ministry clients. According to the privacy commissioner, this creates a two-tiered access and privacy system, causing ministry clients to have fewer rights than with other public bodies.

I realize the ministry is talking about making later amendments to this bill, hon. Speaker. We all know that if the ministry decides to amend this bill, the bill will just be put with the many other stacks of bills that need amending, and it may never see the light of day again. Like most government legislation, bills keep coming back to this Legislature to be corrected. Why is it that everything that this government does is done on the spur of the moment?

The second thing that concerns me about this bill is that it creates a new bureaucracy. Forming a secure care board with the powers described in this bill is a power that only our judges should have. What type of training will these people have? My understanding is that we will not be able to challenge any decision this board makes. There is no appeal process. These children are the most vulnerable of society, and I don't have a lot of faith in having a secure board without any safeguards. If we don't have safeguards, there is always the potential for abuse. We need a balance of rights and responsibilities.

Every time we create a new bureaucracy, this bureaucracy has to make work for itself for its survival.

The third thing that disturbs me is the power that will be given to this government to put kids away for up to 90 days. This bill will give the government absolute power over our children. If the government is going to scoop our kids, then kids should be immediately given a lawyer. Without any accountability, it will be very easy to scoop kids off the street along with their friends. To date, we haven't seen this government do a great job of seizing children, caring for them and providing for their needs. This government hasn't given us any reason to believe they will be any different with secure care.

These are some of my concerns when I look at our province's drug and alcohol problems. I see that they are in epidemic proportions. I see a government with a poor success rate. When it comes to accountability, this ministry is the worst offender. One thing I do care about is the children and families who live in this beautiful province of ours. I will be supporting this bill because if it saves the life of one child, it will be worth it.

[1520]

B. Penner: I too would like to indicate at the outset my intention to support this bill at second reading. However, that's not to say that I don't have a number of concerns about the legislation as presented to the Legislature.

A number of those concerns have already been addressed by two of my colleagues who have already spoken. Foremost among them include the way the government has cobbled together this legislation six weeks after publicly stating that they did not believe in secure care for children. We have seen some remarkable 180 degree turns taken by this government in the last number of months, and this is among them.

We had the Minister for Children and Families saying that secure care was too controversial and therefore would not be pursued, only to be here today debating the principle of the very same legislation and supported by the same minister who said she wouldn't support it six weeks ago. So I wonder about what kind of legislation has been generated, given that it apparently has been done in just six weeks.

Let me focus my remarks a bit more again -- less about the drafting process and more about the specifics in the bill. Like my colleague the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I'm concerned about the lack of an appeal mechanism for young people who may find themselves detained for up to 90 days. Now, 90 days may not sound like a great amount of time to us, but for a young person who may be snatched away from the only home they've ever known, it can be a very traumatic experience.

Prior to being elected here in 1996, I worked for a period of time as a lawyer in Chilliwack. I recall acting for one young person who had been charged with a Criminal Code offence and denied bail. This was the first time that she had spent a night away from home. For two and a half months before her trial could be scheduled, she was forcibly detained, I believe it was at the Maples Centre in Burnaby.

During that time, her mother, who is of very limited financial means, was unable to visit her daughter. I believe my client was 13 or 14 years of age at the time. On a couple of occasions, her mother did arrange transportation to the Maples, only to be turned away and denied access to her daughter -- once, believe it or not, because the Maples was being used to film a movie. Filming the movie and the security concerns around that precluded my client's mother from visiting with her.

All of this was a horribly traumatic experience. But let me just skip ahead. Oh, I forgot to mention that while my client was there, not only was she denied the ability to visit with her mother but her roommate hung herself in her cell, right next to my client. This was the kind of condition that my client was forcibly required to live in for two and a half months.

Well, the trial came. On the day of the trial, the Crown's key witness admitted under cross-examination that in fact it wasn't my client who committed the act but somebody else. They just identified my client because they felt like it. For that reason, my client spent two and a half months locked up in a jail away from her mother, away from home for the very first time in her life and experienced her cellmate committing suicide right next to her. I suspect that my former client, even today, lives with those memories and has to deal with that.

I share that with the members present out of a sincere will to let you know that mistakes do happen, no matter how well-intentioned authority is. If there are not checks and balances built into that authority, mistakes will happen. The Secure Care Board that is created through this legislation will have dramatic, sweeping powers, and there is no mechanism for appeal of those decisions.

In the case of my client, she eventually had her day in court and was acquitted. I should note here, too, that my client had been offered by the Crown that if she'd only plead guilty, they would let her out with just probation. But she said she'd always been taught not to say one thing, if it wasn't true, and do another. So she insisted that she was innocent, and it was borne out. And for that, she paid the price of being separated from her mother for about two and a half months.

[ Page 16980 ]

I know that everyone here has the best of intentions in their heart when it comes to protecting our young people. Clearly we need to be able to move in and deal with young people when they're at their most vulnerable stage, but we have to be ever mindful that human beings are inherently mistake-prone. We are not perfect. We have to build a model or a system that will accommodate those young people who wish to challenge their detention, because that is what we're talking about.

[1525]

In the days to come I believe it will be appropriate to consider a number of amendments to this legislation, and I hope that everyone here will accept those amendments in the spirit in which they are intended, and that is, in a real gesture of goodwill and in a sense of duty to our young people.

I have had constituents come to my office who are frustrated at their lack of power to protect their young ones. Girls as young as 12 years of age, in one case, have been taken away from Chilliwack to the streets of Vancouver, and the parents are told that they don't have a legal right to go collar their children and bring them back.

This legislation, I know, is an attempt to address that kind of scenario. In Alberta the provincial government has already enacted legislation which gives authorities the permission to detain young people for up to 72 hours. This clearly goes much beyond that, and I wonder about the ability of this legislation to withstand a constitutional challenge. I know the legislation in Alberta has been challenged at the Court of Queen's Bench, I believe, which is equivalent to our Supreme Court of British Columbia. It was upheld as a justifiable infringement on a person's Charter rights to liberty of the person.

However, here we are talking about a dramatically increased period of time -- from three days to 90 days -- and I wonder if a court, when interpreting this legislation, will consider that that, too, is an acceptable limitation on our Charter rights. Don't forget, young people do have rights. The courts have already determined that, and we have to balance whatever we're attempting to do with the rights of those individual young people.

So with those cautionary comments, hon. Speaker, I would like to conclude by indicating that I too will be supporting this bill in principle but will be watching closely to see if the government will accept friendly amendments.

T. Stevenson: Of course, I'm pleased to speak in favour of Bill 25. I chaired the secure care working group, which included members such as Diane Sowden of the Children of the Street Society, also service providers, police and people concerned with civil liberties and human rights. It was a very dedicated working group; it had a great deal of expertise. We dealt with this issue over a very long period of time and many meetings, and I want to thank publicly the members of that working group for the extraordinary work that they did.

We, of course, consulted extensively with the public. In fact, more than 200 groups and individuals responded to a call for public feedback. We completed it, as you may recall, in August of '98, and then there was whole year of public consultations. The drafting, then, of the bill began immediately after that, in 1999. So it is absolute rubbish to hear from the opposition that somehow, six weeks ago, all of a sudden we began to draft it. The drafting was done a year before that -- a year before that. Don't you think that that's already done? Of course it has been.

[1530]

We heard from parents, many parents, from all over this province. We heard about their terrible dilemmas. I can say, chairing that group, that on many occasions, talking to parents -- not only here, but right across the country, because I went across the country to look at other secure care facilities in Quebec and Ontario, as well as in Alberta . . . . I talked to parents in all those provinces, and the stories are horrendous of these young people that get caught up in prostitution, get caught up in drugs.

We have very few avenues by which to help them. There's kind of a quiet desperation of their families, in fact, as they watch their children ruin their lives. They believe -- and they're correct in this belief -- that there was nothing that we could do. We couldn't apprehend them and try to do any kind of assessment. So now, finally, we have a bill coming forth that is of great relief to parents.

I listen to the opposition talking about this bill, and I must say that I get somewhat discouraged. I don't think that the members really have any personal knowledge of what's at stake here or have talked to the parents or talked to these groups. Everything I've heard was negative. There isn't one word that possibly this bill is of any use or of any help. Then all of a sudden, at the end we say: "Oh yes, but we're still going to support it." Everything in the meantime is to tear it down. It's just negativity, negativity, negativity.

It would be helpful if the opposition would discuss this legislation with us and point out what they think is good about the legislation and what's helpful about the legislation and what they see as positive -- and then, of course, help us out again by pointing out where they think there's more that we could do. Obviously both sides of this House are interested in doing whatever we can do deal with this very, very difficult situation.

We cannot continue to sacrifice our children. As you know, I represent Vancouver-Burrard; that's the downtown area of Vancouver. We have these young people on the streets in downtown Vancouver. They will be panhandling, and they're prostituting. They're into drugs; they're into selling drugs. These are young kids. I've seen them and talked to them as young as 12 years old, and there has been very little up to now that we could do about this.

So secure care is just another way that we can support the parents as they work to protect the kids. They have come to us, and they have begged us to help them support their kids. They're literally at wits' end trying to figure out how to get them off the street, trying to figure out how to get them away from pimps, trying to figure out how to get them away from those that would have them sell drugs on the street.

Sometimes, you know, we think that they come from some sort of broken homes, that those are the only kids and they're bad kids or something. That's not true. There's all sorts of different situations that often come together for a kid to end up on the streets. Often it's not because the parent is lacking in love or care or anything else, but things go wrong. Then all of a sudden, they find their little child -- 12-, 13- and 14-year-old girls and boys -- prostituting on the streets and prostituting, as I say, in my riding. So we have listened to these parents. And again, I say that this working group was a group of

[ Page 16981 ]

experts. I was incredibly impressed by these people who worked so hard to come up with this report. I urge the opposition to read that report and to see how, in fact, this legislation is a direct result of that report.

[1535]

The members of this working group covered all of the issues and all of the questions that I hear the members of the opposition raising -- and then many more questions as well. We are following their advice. It's not our agenda that we're trying to jam down the throats of kids or society -- or take away anything. We are listening to the parents; we are listening to these experts who are asking us: "Please, please, government, help us out on this."

We also heard from the youth themselves, who said again and again to us: "Don't give up on us. Don't give up on us. Don't let us destroy our lives. We've ended up here, and we've ended up here for a whole number of reasons, and we don't know how to get out of it. We don't know how to change it. We're hooked on drugs, or we have a pimp that's always after us."

I think I mentioned this some time ago, that I spent 24 hours -- or rather, overnight -- down on Granville Street, along with some members of the opposition. That was really an eye-opener, because at three o'clock in the morning, I'm talking to these young kids who you just want to take home and, say, tuck into bed. But these kids are wiped out -- are totally wiped out. And there's nothing we could do. We can't touch them. We just have to say: "Well, gee, we'd like you to have some help, but if you don't want to have some help, well, I'm sorry." We have to tell the parents that they can't take them home, because there's no way that we can pick them up and send them home.

I understand that it's not easy to balance the rights of children and the rights of parents. There is, you know, a declaration of children's rights. It's the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. I actually have that declaration in my office. Ironically, I'd never seen it until I went to South Africa. It's a wonderful declaration of children's rights. The ANC in South Africa was very much behind this declaration; they put out posters. I happened to pick up one of those posters, so I have it in my office. I do fervently believe in the rights of children.

I mean, children are not owned by parents, although some parents obviously think that they do own their children. But they are a gift to parents to nurture and bring up for a short period of time and then let them go.

These children have rights, but parents also have rights. And so how do you balance this when a child says: "No, I don't want to be picked up. I want to stay on the street. I want to self-destruct"? And the parents are begging you and saying "But we have rights as parents. We want you to intervene."

So I'm not saying for a moment that these questions aren't difficult. Certainly I can tell you that the discussion that went on in the working group around this area was prolonged and difficult, with people at very opposite ends of the poles trying to come up with some solution or compromise that everyone could agree to, and finally we did. But it was after enormous struggle, and every possible avenue and question that you can think of was thoroughly discussed.

[1540]

Obviously, holding children against their will is not a comfortable prospect; it's not something that we like to do. This legislation means that we'll only be doing it with the very high-risk children. This is not a carte blanche to have someone go down and just pick up all the kids in the street that are panhandling and shove them into secure care. There are checks and balances in this legislation. It is crafted -- I think, brilliantly -- in order to find those checks and balances, taking into account that we don't want to apprehend children. But in some high-risk, extreme cases we have to do it.

I would argue that this legislation responds directly to the needs of the youth, to the needs of the families and to the needs of society. I think we have in this legislation found the right balance. We're able to meet and respond to those three groups: youth themselves, the families and society at large. Adequate safeguards are in place. Only the board will be able to place a child in secure care, only the board or the director of secure care, in an emergency situation, which does arise from time to time. They will be placed in very specialized places.

When I travelled across the country and went to Montreal, to some secure care places outside of Montreal, and also outside of Toronto, I was horrified. I ended up going to these places. And what did I see? Literally, jails with bars; this is their idea of secure care. That's a far, far cry from what we are creating here in British Columbia. I would urge members, if you get an opportunity, to look at some of the information about some of the other secure care places in the country and realize that we are going to be light-years ahead of anything I saw.

I also spent some time in Calgary at a centre that's trying to do work with recovery, trying to get young people off drugs, trying to get young people off alcohol. And to realize there just what a task we have, after we've done our assessment and consultation, to try and get these young people moving in a new direction -- it won't be easy at all.

But first we've got to get them off the streets. First we've got to be able to do some sort of an assessment and try to give them options and help them see where there is another way to go. And we can't do that while they're on the streets.

The secure care here in B.C. is anything but a jail. They are going to be centres where the children are well looked after. Yes, there are some obvious constraints, because we have to make sure that they stay in for a period of time to do that assessment. But it is not by any means a jail.

This legislation is specialized legislation, and it requires a specialized response. Obviously there's a very short period of time that children . . . . By the way, we're basically looking at children from 12 to 16 years of age. That's the target group that we're concerned about. Again, extreme cases and only up to 72 hours, and there are some other provisions and so on, which I know you're all aware of. But that's the target, and that's where the emphasis has been placed.

[1545]

The needs and rights of children and families regarding their personal information, obviously, require a special code that protects those rights while affording the service providers the ability to share the appropriate information. I understand the concerns of the information and privacy commissioner, as I have seen them and hope that he and the ministry will work to resolve the concerns he has identified. I think that certainly will happen.

But, hon. Speaker, I would just urge the opposition, rather than being negative about this -- because I hear that they're going to support it -- to tell us, as I said, what it is that they think is helpful. I think they should have some appreciation

[ Page 16982 ]

for the working group that has just laboured so long and hard, and these experts. I think they should recognize that and recognize what has gone into this and point out where they think the direction is in the right way and also, obviously, then work with us in some of the places that they think there's still some way to go.

I am very pleased, having been the chair of this committee, to be able to speak to this today. I feel quite passionate about it, because I have spent so much time dealing with this. Also, in my own personal experience and in my riding I have dealt with so many young people who are in such desperate, desperate straits. I thank the minister for bringing this forward, and I will certainly be supporting Bill 25 through all the stages.

E. Gillespie: It is a significant pleasure I take today in rising to support Bill 25, a significant pleasure and, I would say, a serious responsibility. Secure care is indeed controversial, as well it should be. Secure care legislation is a dramatic power for government to act when a child is at extreme risk of harm to himself or herself. In this House we have spoken many times, largely through private members' statements, about the rights of children and about the need for services for children in this province. We have always spoken about the need, in this province, to make sure that we take care of all of the children of this province.

Legislation is always about balance, and in this legislation we have worked to balance the rights of the child with the responsibility to act to protect children who are at serious risk of harming themselves. There are a number of protections which exist in the act. The line between helping and harming is tenuous. It's very difficult to make a decision to place a youth in secure care. But the act provides for a number of provisions to give support, both procedural and for human rights.

Notice of hearings will be given to the child and to other people that are significant in the child's life, including the child, youth and family advocate. All young people who are detained will have the opportunity to state their case before the Secure Care Board.

The board itself is composed of a broad mix of people from the community, providing an extra safeguard. Board members will have special training and expertise in matters pertaining to high-risk children. As well, members of the board will reflect various considerations, including the cultural diversity and geographic differences of our province. The appointments to the board will be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

[1550]

The board will make decisions in a timely matter. The legislation refers to decisions being made within seven days. Currently there is a very heavy workload in the Provincial Court system. I heard one of the other members referring to the Provincial Court system as perhaps the appropriate vehicle for this. But clearly we need to be able to divert these situations where children are at serious risk of harming themselves, in order to expedite the hearings, in order to treat these matters very quickly. The board will use an informal process, while still ensuring due process. And the Children's Commission will receive copies of each intervention plan to monitor follow-up.

Also, the rights of youth have been enshrined within the legislation, guaranteeing that they be fed, clothed and sheltered according to reasonable standards; that they be free from corporal punishment; that they be informed about their intervention and assistance plans and be consulted about significant decisions affecting them; that they have privacy in discussions with family, their guardian, a lawyer, the child, youth and family advocate, the children's commissioner and other public officials; and that they be able to participate in social, recreational and religious activities; that children receive guidance and encouragement to maintain their cultural heritage; and that they receive guidance and assistance to address the risk that led to their detainment.

Provisions for appeal and reconsideration of all decisions are made within this legislation.

I've had some time to think about this legislation in terms of my own life experience and perhaps that of some of my constituents who've spoken to me. I feel very privileged, and I remind myself of that privilege every day -- to be the parent of young children, children who embrace life, who exhibit love, who are well integrated with friends, with school, with community. Every day I recognize the fragile nature of that connection of any child to the rest of society. That very fragile nature can be exploited by people involved in the sex trade. It can be incredibly damaged by addictions to drugs and other substances.

I think every parent and indeed every person in this society in British Columbia needs to recognize that what we appreciate about our children is not necessarily universal, but it is fragile -- that it must be supported at all times. Our children must be supported in order to be able to live full lives.

I had the experience just recently of talking to another parent, a parent who I don't think many people in the community would ever have known had been going through a very rough time with a child for a number of years. This parent was celebrating the recent wedding of a daughter. This was a daughter who had been lost to her father and mother for a number of years, lost due to drug addiction, lost due to the exploitation of the sex trade.

This very courageous parent said to me that in celebrating the wedding of their daughter, the lesson he had learned over this period of time was the lesson of love, that parents cannot ever give up on their children, that they must just love, keep on loving and trust in that love.

This legislation will give support to parents and to community for people who are trying to love children, children who seem lost to them, children who are at serious risk of harming themselves, who need indeed to be loved, but who also need the care and security that this legislation will provide. Thank you very much. It's indeed a pleasure to support this legislation.

[1555]

R. Coleman: Good afternoon, everybody.

I take no pleasure, absolutely no pleasure, in speaking to this legislation, not because I don't believe in secure care but because it's so sad that we need legislation like this in our province. This legislation is about human tragedy. This legislation tells us that we have something happening on our streets that clearly tells us that we have to intervene as government.

That means this: it means there's child abuse; it means there's drug addiction; it means there are predatory attacks on young people. It means that people are being pushed into

[ Page 16983 ]

trades and pushed into areas and decisions in their lives that they shouldn't have to make, because we've let them down. It means that it's a society that has a portion of it that really needs to get itself in check, because some young people out there are really suffering.

I've had the unfortunate circumstance of observing it in both of the areas that this bill actually tries to address relative to young people; that's those people engaged in the sex trade and in substance abuse. There's nothing and no way you could describe that human tragedy. There's no way you could describe the fact that this could be happening to someone so young.

This bill provides for the involuntary secure care of young high-risk persons. High-risk persons are those who are engaged in substance abuse and those involved in the sex trade. It allows for 72-hour intervention to take young people off the street by law enforcement and put them into some form of secure care.

I want to stop there for a second, because in that 72-hour period we'd better have the facilities there for these people. We'd better not be putting them into substandard facilities. We'd better not be putting them into facilities where there aren't the professionals that can help them. We'd better not be making the mistake of only making the problem worse or making the mistake by not having the investment on the ground to make this thing work. A piece of paper is not going to address this problem. A piece of paper is only going to give direction to move towards helping to solve this problem.

We'd better realize that we do not have, at this point in time, the facilities and the services to back this bill up. We'd better realize that we have got facilities in this province that should be enhanced to help these young people. That's why I take no pleasure in the discussion of this bill today.

Hon. Speaker, noting the time, I'd like to reserve my position in this debate and move adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to call Committee of Supply to discuss the Premier's estimates.

The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OPERATIONS

(continued)

On vote 9: office of the Premier, $2,713,000 (continued).

The Chair: We'll recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:06 p.m.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There were some questions that the Leader of the Opposition wanted answered. Here are the answers. With respect to Stu Backerman, I went back and checked, and I was advised that there was a possibility of perception of conflict of interest with respect to that particular contract. Out of an abundance of caution, my office took the action that they felt was appropriate.

Second question with respect to Mr. Chilton and Now Communications: he neither negotiates with them nor has any approval authority with respect to any contracts that may take place with Now Communications.

Third, the salary of Mr. Hans Brown: it's $122,000 per annum.

G. Campbell: I'd just like to ask the Premier this question. There was a perception of conflict of interest. Was the perception that Mr. Backerman had worked on the minister's campaign for the leadership?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that in itself would constitute a complete perception of conflict -- or conflict. I think that I would now be giving you some general comments. I don't know all of the specific details. But I think a question about tendering contracts and perhaps not having a process in place, if you add all of that with the political connection, could lead to a perception of conflict.

G. Campbell: Just one last question on this matter to the Premier: did the Premier's chief of staff review this with the conflict commissioner prior to it? Or was the decision made without reference to the conflict commissioner?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There was no reference to the conflict commissioner, since the question that one was dealing with was a contractor and not a cabinet individual or an MLA.

G. Campbell: Just so the Premier knows, I intend to ask a few more questions about the Premier's Office. Then I would like to talk about intergovernmental relations and what's taking place with regard to that -- just so the Premier has a sense of where we're going.

First, with regard to his office, the Premier has said that all ministries are required to have business plans, performance plans against which ministers can be measured. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the ministries are supposed to have performance plans, but they obviously have programs and projects that are within their domains. They are to constantly monitor them, of course, and then report at the end of the year whether it's been overspent or underspent. I understand that the hon. leader is asking with respect to actual performance plans. I think the ministries have them, and at the end of the year, that's the assessment that comes in, in terms of whether they have underspent or overspent and how they've done.

[1610]

G. Campbell: On June 6 the Premier informed the House that ministries and Crowns must prepare performance plans with clearly defined strategic priorities and performance measures; that, I assume, is correct. Can the Premier tell me where those performance plans and those measures are going to be reviewed? In what area or jurisdiction of government does the Premier expect those plans to be reviewed so ministers or staffs can be held to account?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe those are the regular performance plans that they do every year. The reviewing body is the Treasury Board.

[ Page 16984 ]

G. Campbell: My question to the Premier is: does the Premier actually have a performance plan that's in place for all of government -- for the cabinet, for his colleagues in cabinet? And if he does, are there measurable goals and objectives within those plans?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: These are ministry-based performance plans and models that exist. There is no such plan in fact for the Premier's Office, I've discovered.

G. Campbell: I understand there's no plan for the Premier's Office, because we asked for one and didn't get one. What I am concerned about is who is holding these ministries and these ministers to account. How does that come forward? It comes to Treasury Board. And if it's coming to Treasury Board, what are the remedies that are put in place? How is the accountability flowing through to the Premier?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Treasury Board reports on any of the matters, on any decisions that are made or deferred. They come to cabinet.

G. Campbell: One of the challenges that I face on the outside looking in, I think, is to determine how words are transformed into actions, how words and actions are transformed into results. One of the former employees of the Premier's Office was Mr. Gunton. I'm sure the Premier is aware of that. Mr. Gunton was given a task on August 30, 1999. That task was, and I'll quote directly:

"You will ensure smooth transition of your major project files to agreed-upon senior staff over the coming weeks. To accomplish transition, please provide me with the list of major project files for which you are responsible. As well, please include a

summary of the current 'state-of-play' on each of these files and your proposals for the appropriate steps to ensure a smooth transition, including your recommendations regarding the senior official best able to assume responsibility for each file. I'd appreciate receiving this information as soon as possible, but by September 10, 1999, in any case."

When we asked for that information, we were told by the Premier's Office that there were no records that were relevant to a freedom-of-information request. Can the Premier tell me what happened with Mr. Gunton's report that was due in September of 1999?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The deputy minister tells me that he's never heard of the letter. He doesn't know who signed the letter. I'd be happy to answer the question once the hon. leader tells me who signed the letter.

G. Campbell: It's personal and confidential. I'm not sure if it's a letter or a memorandum from the office of the Premier, signed by George Ford and countersigned by Mr. Gunton on August 3, 1999.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: My deputy tells me that he in fact is not aware of that. This is the first he has heard of it. He'd be happy to provide you with any information he can get.

G. Campbell: My question to the Premier is: is the Premier or his deputy minister aware of any information at all coming to the Premier's Office from Mr. Gunton since August of 1999?

[1615]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told by the deputy minister that the answer is no. And I can tell you personally, from my personal knowledge during the last four months, the answer is no.

G. Campbell: Can the Premier or his deputy minister inform the House as to what exactly Mr. Gunton is doing? I'm asking this question because we have asked both the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Employment and Investment, who were evidently engaging Mr. Gunton's services. Mr Gunton is currently being paid, I think, in the order of $110,000 a year. I'd be interested in what Mr. Gunton's activities have been over the last number of months. Who would be following that and tracking that so we can determine, once and for all, what exactly he has been doing since August 27, 1999?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: My deputy minister tells me that at this time we don't have that information. I would be very happy, in fact, and I will undertake to provide a detailed description, through the deputy minister, to the hon. Leader of the Opposition with respect to any information that we may be able to find throughout government.

G. Campbell: One last appointment to the Premier's Office that I would like to discuss is Mr. Schreck. I understand that Mr. Schreck has been appointed by the Premier as a special adviser to the Premier. I believe that his salary is in the order of $90,000 a year. Can the Premier confirm that and inform us as to what Mr. Schreck's duties are?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The deputy minister is looking for the salary, and we will confirm that in a moment.

The special adviser, David Schreck, works with government agencies on the effective use of new communications technology to help keep all British Columbia citizens informed of government programs and policies. What he has been doing is updating and improving the government's Internet sites. He's been making access to information easier for citizens with, of course, new emphasis on the use of e-mail to communicate with government. He has special expertise and skills in that area. He's been one of the computer whizzes, and he's been assisting us to make sure that we do some of that work.

G. Campbell: As the Premier knows, we actually have an Information, Science and Technology Agency in British Columbia, which is highly skilled in this -- I would suggest more skilled than Mr. Schreck. I'm interested in what the difference is between the talents that Mr. Schreck brings to these objectives and the talents that ISTA brings.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: One of the priorities in my mind is to make sure that the information is accessible and that it's accessible in a form that's readable and comprehensible to the citizens. When David Schreck was a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I remember, this was an issue that he was very interested in. He actually worked with the office of the privacy commissioner and, I understand, actually worked with the legislative staff here with respect to the legislation as well.

Yes, ISTA has a role, but Mr. Schreck's role is to actually push the envelope a bit and make sure that we continue to do more than we're doing right now.

G. Campbell: Beyond a personal interest in this or a political interest in this, can the Premier tell us what Mr. Schreck's qualifications are for this task?

[ Page 16985 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Mr. Schreck is a man . . . . I think we may differ with his ideas on the other side; we may differ with what he believes in. He's one of the more brilliant people in British Columbia, if one knows him. He is an expert on computers, and he is doing what he's been asked to do: make sure that the government information is accessible. He's pushing the envelope. He's pushing the agencies in government to make sure that that information is on the Internet sites at the earliest possible . . . . He continues to do that.

He has a doctorate. He's been a business person managing certain organizations in the past. He has political skills. He was a member of the House and dealt with, in fact, information technology as part of his responsibilities, pushing the envelope here to make sure that information from the Legislature was accessible to people.

[1620]

G. Campbell: I will leave this there, just to see if the Premier can confirm this for me. The Premier's not aware of any special technical training Mr. Schreck has had, of any special software training that Mr. Schreck has had. I recognize he has an interest in this, but he has no technical training that I know of, and I'm asking the Premier if he knows of any special technical training, whether it's engineering training or technology training, that Mr. Schreck brings to this job.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Actually, I'm just learning about computers myself. I'm a bit of a technopeasant. But I understand you don't need any training to learn about programming and computers. You can actually do that yourself. I'm beginning to do that. He's been working on this issue a long, long time. I'd be very happy, if we had time, to actually bring him in here and let him tell you what he can or can't do.

The other part of one of the earlier questions the hon. member asked is that Dr. Schreck's salary is $93,947 a year. You know, it's interesting, hon. Chair. There are many great men in the world who actually haven't been to school very long.

An Hon. Member: And women.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Men and women. Einstein was one of them; I understand that he dropped out of school. So was Churchill, I understand. So I don't think that it's a . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, I'm not talking about . . . . I'm talking about the intellect. Intellect really has not much to do with degrees -- nor does wisdom.

G. Campbell: The issue here is not about Mr. Schreck's innate intelligence, although I guess we could have a debate about that. It is simply about the fact that the taxpayers of B.C. are paying someone $93,000 a year, I assume, to develop programs which we already have an organization, ISTA, in place to do. Mr. Schreck, I understand from the Premier's answer, does not have any technical training that he can apply to this. Therefore I'm not sure what Mr. Schreck's role is other than to politicize these activities as opposed to dealing with moving, as the Premier said, the edge of the envelope with regard to Internet, e-mail -- all of those sorts of new

technologies which are available to us and the public and which I would encourage the government to proceed with and pursue.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: What technical training he has . . . . I'd be happy to provide a detailed answer to that in writing, in fact. I may have to ask him if there are any courses that he's taken, but I do know that he has the technical expertise. That may be distinct from technical training -- the question that the hon. member is asking.

G. Plant: I'm not going to pursue the question of Mr. Schreck's personal expertise anymore, but I am intrigued to hear that the office of the Information, Science and Technology Agency is apparently inadequate for the task of assisting the government in becoming more able to communicate with the public of British Columbia through technology. That seems to me what the agenda of Mr. Schreck is. Maybe he's just a cheerleader for technology around government.

I guess the question I wanted to ask was whether . . . . First of all, when did Mr. Schreck assume this responsibility?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sometime towards the end of February or early March.

G. Plant: Has Mr. Schreck had an opportunity over the last four months to develop a plan of action? Presumably there's some sort of document he's been working on to outline the plan for government to become better at whatever it is the government is not currently good at. It would be interesting . . . .

I personally am very interested in the question of how government can improve the way it communicates with citizens. If David Schreck has been on the job thinking, presumably exclusively, about that issue, then presumably he's done some papers for the Premier. I'm sure they would make for good reading. I bet the head of the Information, Science and Technology Agency would be excited to see them too. Is there some work product as a result of Dr. Schreck's efforts? Or is he still sort of thinking about what it is he's going to be doing?

[1625]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: He has been working for the last four months, and I'd be happy to actually provide the opposition with information that they're looking for. I'd be happy to speak to David Schreck and get him to put it in writing as to what he's been doing for the last four months and what the plans are.

G. Plant: I'll take the Premier up on that invitation, and I look forward to seeing what's happening.

I observe, for example, that there are three provinces in Canada that have introduced legislation to accommodate the fact that there's legal uncertainty around electronic commerce. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada has enacted a model code that provides the legislative framework for electronic commerce. I think it's been put, as I say, on the calendar or on the floor of at least three legislatures in Canada. I've been wondering why British Columbia isn't a leader; we're already a follower.

I wasn't aware that the government had available to it this additional resource in the form of David Schreck.

[ Page 16986 ]

An Hon. Member: Dr. Schreck.

G. Plant: Or Dr. Schreck.

It seems to me that we're already falling behind in lots of ways in terms of providing leadership in the technological revolution. That's just one example, it seems to me, of how we're not leading the charge; rather, we're following. I know there is work being done inside the Information, Science and Technology Agency around this. My concern, frankly, is that if there is a free-floating satellite drifting around outside the Premier's Office, in the form of a special adviser to the Premier, that's the kind of position and the kind of person that tends to cause trouble inside established agencies like ISTA, rather than make their job easier.

Maybe the Premier could just assist me a little bit further in understanding how it is that the government did not have access to adequate resources to update and improve its Internet sites until Dr. Schreck came along, that the government apparently did not have access to sufficient resources to make access to key information easier for citizens before David Schreck came along and that apparently the government was unable to recognize the need for a new emphasis on the use of e-mail to communicate with the government before Dr. Schreck came along.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The legislation that the hon. member alludes to is drafted. If the hon. members opposite agree that they will allow it to pass in one day, I think we can perhaps prepare it for introduction next week and have it passed along with the balanced-budget law.

G. Plant: Actually, I thought the Premier was somebody who supported the idea of involving the public in the legislative process. It would seem to me that a good way of doing that would be for the government to table its legislation and to leave it on the order paper for a while and let the public have a look at it. Then perhaps, after a few months of looking at it, the public would have a chance to determine whether it's adequate for the need.

The legislative draftspeople would have a chance to do what they do, which is correct the government's legislation on an annual basis, and we in the opposition and private members would have a chance to make sure that the bill worked. So I think the Premier would surely agree that that's a better way to make legislation than the one-day idea that he, I am sure unintentionally, suggested a minute ago.

[1630]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I know we're not in court, but we are in the Legislature. My learned friend on the other side has made a wonderful suggestion, and we will do exactly that.

G. Campbell: I want to move to intergovernmental relations and the intergovernmental relations secretariat with the Premier, if I may. I guess the first question that I have for the Premier is if the Premier could highlight for us what he thinks the top five, say, priorities are with regard to intergovernmental relations.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe the top priority for this government is to make sure that we begin to work and continue to work cooperatively with the federal government -- unlike Ontario, unlike Alberta. They're constantly bickering with Ottawa, and I want to make sure that we work with Ottawa cooperatively. I think politicians of the nation benefit when there is political posturing and political bickering; it is the people that benefit when politicians work together.

I've attempted to do that. I've attempted to change the environment that I found when I got into the Premier's chair. I've had several meetings with the Prime Minister, and I've met with other Premiers. I've talked to many of them on the phone in several conferences. And I think it's important that we work together. That is the top priority. Everything else is subsumed under that priority.

One can talk about health care, which is an issue that faces the entire nation, not just British Columbia. What happened with the northern doctors isn't an issue just in British Columbia; it's an issue right across the country. What's happening in the hospitals isn't just an issue in British Columbia; it's an issue right across the country. What's happening with the nurses shortage isn't just an issue in British Columbia; it's an issue right across the country.

One of the priorities -- the top priority -- is to start working cooperatively with the federal government, and we've attempted to begin that process. Under that main priority, we have issues such as the environmental issues, and there could be several under that; the issues around Nanoose Bay; the issues around the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre; the health issues, of course; and the issues around transportation and investment in transportation and infrastructure.

All of those issues are very, very important, and we are currently in discussions with the federal government on those issues, as we are on the national children's agenda. We would dearly love for the federal government to provide us with some more resources in accordance with their priority of the national children's agenda so that we can actually continue to do the work that we started with this budget -- building a comprehensive, universally accessible child care system in this province which would be the envy of the world.

Those are the kinds of priorities we have. It isn't just one priority. We are prepared to work and talk to the federal government, to work with them unconditionally to make sure that people in British Columbia get the benefit of cooperation between two governments, rather than have politicians bickering over issues that can be better worked out by cooperation.

G. Campbell: First, let me say that I certainly agree that it's important for the government to work with the federal government -- and with other levels of government, for that matter, whether it's municipal or provincial governments -- to make sure that we accomplish what's best for the people of British Columbia. I was frankly appalled at this government's activities with regard to the federal government on a number of occasions.

The Premier has mentioned Nanoose Bay. We have said in the past that we think it's important for the federal government to restore the confidence of British Columbians and, in fact, to restore the land mass and enter into the lease that was thoroughly debated and honestly negotiated, which this government then decided to throw out the window.

There are a lot of messages, there's no question, over the last nine years which have gone right against the federal government's interests and, more importantly, against the interests of British Columbians. Let's just start with that one.

[ Page 16987 ]

I've got a number that I think it's important for us to understand. Once we've all agreed that we want to cooperate with the federal government, once we've all agreed that it is critical for us to make sure we maximize the benefits of British Columbians from the federal-provincial partnership, let me ask the Premier about a number of specifics.

Let's deal with Nanoose Bay, since the Premier brought that up. With regard to Nanoose Bay, has the Premier entered into discussions for the return of that land, for the restoration of the lease, which was openly and, I think, fairly negotiated, so the coastal communities of British Columbia can have that $125 million as a commitment to rebuild their economic future?

[1635]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said earlier, I have raised that issue with the Prime Minister in the last two meetings that I had with him. Government officials are in continuing discussions over that issue. I want to resolve that issue by (1) having the land returned to us in British Columbia -- it's our land -- and (2) with respect to any lease payments over time, make an arrangement with respect to that, an arrangement which might then lead to a Columbia Basin Trust-type of trust that deals with the needs and hopes of the coastal communities in British Columbia.

So yes, there are discussions underway. I don't have any progress to report at this time, but there are many, many areas where discussions are taking place. In the last four months we have not come to a conclusion on any of them, but we're working hard.

G. Campbell: I think that one of the things that's important, in view of the Premier's statements in the past, is for us to recognize that within this House, we all want to accomplish those goals. My question to the Premier with regard Nanoose Bay is: is there not a way that we can encourage all members of the House to be part of those solutions so that the federal government knows that this is not a divisive issue -- that this is where we speak with one voice in the province of British Columbia?

I ask that not just with regard to Nanoose Bay, where the Premier is articulating exactly the position that I have articulated to the Prime Minister, but for other issues as well, where we could come together and speak with a united voice to the federal government.

There's only one time that I'm aware of since I was elected to this House -- since 1993 or '94 -- where the Legislature has actually come together and said, "This is something that's important for us all to do" -- where it's properly processed, where it's properly understood by all members of the Legislature so that they can move forward. That was with regard to the previous softwood lumber agreement, where we said it was critical . . . . The former independent member from the PDA, the member for Peace River South and I said to the federal government that we thought it was important that B.C. get a fair share.

There are a number of issues like this which are in front of us. I would suggest that Nanoose Bay is one of them.

A second one that I think is critical to all the people of British Columbia . . . . Our party, the opposition, came out and said that we should save all of Burns Bog. The government had decided on a number of steps that they would take, which I think would have jeopardized Burns Bog. I am pleased that they have decided to move against that. But now is the time for us to speak with one voice to the federal government, encouraging them to come to the table to make sure that Burns Bog is preserved and protected, not just as a regional asset and not just as a provincial asset but as a national asset.

My question to the Premier is: what steps have been taken with regard to Burns Bog, and how does the Premier intend to change this institution so that we can all speak with one voice and come to agreements? There are lots of things we disagree on. But there may be things we actually agree on, where if we do speak with one voice, with a united voice for British Columbia, we will get better results.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I commend the hon. Leader of the Opposition for expressing the sentiment that he does, because I share that sentiment. And I think that when we stand here in this House and we speak the way the hon. leader has spoken, that signifies and symbolizes our determination and will to work together on at least the issues that we talk about in that context.

Let me add another issue to that context, and that's the full restoration of CHST transfers with respect to health and education, particularly health. I think that that's an issue on which there would be no division if that issue came before the House, nor would there be any division on Nanoose Bay or Burns Bog. Burns Bog has become, and is, a symbol of what we need to do environmentally. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition.

[1640]

All of these issues are part of the ongoing discussions. I have expressed to the Prime Minister and I have said publicly that Nanoose Bay is a priority for us in British Columbia. Burns Bog is a priority for us in British Columbia. The Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre is a priority for economic purposes for us in British Columbia. There are issues that we are currently negotiating on. These are the issues that we've presented to the federal government, and I'm hoping that we will make progress in the next short while on all of these issues.

G. Campbell: The shame of this is that we have to come to estimates before we're brought together so that we can actually move forward on these agendas. I believe that it's critical for us to establish a process where we can do this before estimates, before we get to the House, before we have to ask questions, where everyone knows what the agenda is, so we can move forward.

I'll give the Premier an example of another issue: the convention centre he's just mentioned. I know that in an interview he explained that there was a cabinet committee that was working on a number of items, including the convention centre. When the member for Okanagan-Penticton asked the minister responsible for that, he didn't know anything about the committee. It seems to me that one of the critical things is for all of us to know where we're going with regard to intergovernmental relations. And if -- I think it was -- the Employment and Investment minister doesn't know about it, it's very difficult for us to know and to add our voices to that.

So I'd like to touch on a couple of other issues to see whether or not the government is working on those or what message they think they can send. Then I would like to deal with the Premier on how we can maybe establish some sort of way of moving forward with these items, because they are in

[ Page 16988 ]

the interests in British Columbians. They're not in the interests of a political party; they're not in the interests of one side of the House or the other. They're in the interests of everybody.

One issue that I would like to ask the Premier about is the marine park. There was an agreement for the pacific marine park with the federal government -- Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy park, I think it was called. My understanding is that, at this point, the federal government has contributed about $30 million dollars to that. The province has not yet contributed its full share of that. Does the province intend to do that as a sign of good faith to the federal government that, in fact, we will carry out our sides of these agreements and negotiations when we're working on them?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am aware that that is a priority with respect to that issue with the federal government. It's a priority with us. In fact, we have ongoing discussions with the federal government on that. We are prepared to take a look at fulfilling our commitments in an appropriate context, and that's what the discussions are about. Greg McDade is the individual who is dealing with this issue. I am acutely aware of the importance of this particular issue.

I want to work with the federal government -- in fact, assist them -- in arriving at a good conclusion, so that it benefits not just the federal objectives but our own objectives. So that's an issue that's a priority for us. But obviously there are concerns, and those concerns are currently under discussion with the federal government.

G. Campbell: That answer, actually, is a little confusing to me. We had an announcement from the federal and provincial governments that they were going to move forward with the Pacific Marine Heritage Legacy. As I understand it, the federal government has lived up to its side of the agreement. When the Premier says: "We are going to look at how we can fulfil our commitments . . . .

" As someone who is negotiating with the federal government, as someone who is negotiating with the citizens, as someone who is negotiating with another ministry in government, I would think that when you make a commitment, you fulfil it. So I'm interested in what the issues are that the Premier's concerned about. An agreement was made; the agreement has not been fully met by the provincial government. Are we intending to meet that agreement in full, or are we going to change it?

[1645]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. leader misunderstood the thrust of my remarks, and that may be my fault, because I didn't specify the response enough. There are questions around whether or not the province may be able to participate in kind rather than in cash in terms of the contribution from the province. I think that's in terms of the land. Those are discussions that are underway. I don't have all of the details, nor would I want the details until there is an agreement in place and I'm told to then approve it. I'd be happy to share those details.

I'd be happy to have the deputy minister responsible, in fact, advise and brief the hon. Leader of the Opposition in confidence about the state of those discussions. I don't have all the details at this time.

G. Campbell: I appreciate that offer, and we'll certainly take the Premier up on that offer. I would just like to understand this: is this about changing the agreement, or not? Did we agree to a $30 million cash outlay, as the federal government did? Is there an argument about whether land is cash? What is the disagreement about? What was not clear in the agreement that we're now looking for specificity on?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is an agreement in place, and we intend to live up to that agreement. The question is whether or not that agreement is lived up to through providing additional lands or money to deal with those issues. I think that's an appropriate question. If one has the land that's in an appropriate area to enhance what needs to be done, that may be an appropriate thing to do.

G. Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, there are a number of issues before the federal government that are, I would assume, on the provincial-federal agenda, on the mutual provincial agenda. One of the most critical ones is with regard to the softwood lumber agreement. I wonder if the Premier could give us an update on what exactly is taking place. What voice and what role is the government taking in trying to push B.C.'s agenda and interests at the softwood table? I know from dealing with a number of other people across the country that other provinces are very actively engaged in this.

There was, I think, a fair amount of concern that we were in a relatively uncertain position in the province of British Columbia. Really, the only people that are going to pay the price for that are the people that live and work in forest communities and depend on the forest industry for their jobs. Could the Premier give us an outline of exactly what's taking place with that?

And I'd ask the Premier once again: is there a way that we can establish a process where we are all included in this initiative, so that we are all aware of what position the province is taking? There may be issues where we disagree with it one way or another, but I think, again, if we think about the best interests of British Columbians, we'd be better to be informed before the fact rather than after the fact. We would be better to be looked upon as allies rather than adversaries with regard to this. That's how the people of British Columbia will benefit.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I know that the Ministry of Forests, and particularly Deputy Minister Doney, has been in constant discussions with the industry. Industry is trying to develop a B.C. position. The last I had heard, there was no consensus on a B.C. position amongst the industry, and I want to make sure that government doesn't move off in a particular direction without having a consensus built up amongst our producers in British Columbia. That's the crucial issue for us.

Once we have a British Columbia position agreed to -- significant consensus in British Columbia on that -- we would very actively and vigorously pursue that position at the national table, so that can be then carried into negotiations with the U.S.

I would be happy from time to time, once there is significant development, to have the hon. Leader of the Opposition briefed on it, because these aren't secrets. These are issues of common concern to all British Columbians. I am concerned about what's happening in the industry right now. There is a strike, and there are 12,000 people not working, and that's going to cause fiscal issues and concerns for us in British Columbia. I want to make sure that we have an industry that's vibrant, an industry that has unhindered, unfettered access to the market to the extent possible.

I know that the IWA has said that they support free trade. I know that some parts of the industry don't support free

[ Page 16989 ]

trade; other parts of the industry in British Columbia support free trade on lumber. I also know that the issue involved in that is that if you have unfettered free trade, how does that impact the export of raw logs from British Columbia?

These are very complex issues, and I want to make sure that there is consensus amongst us before we begin at the government level to then advance that consensus.

[1650]

G. Campbell: I appreciate the difficulty that the public policy issue presents. The concern I have is that other provinces have spent literally the last 18 months pursuing their particular provincial agendas. One of the things that I think we have to do is pursue a public policy agenda for the province of British Columbia. What is the public position of the government? The Premier says that the IWA is for free trade and others are for free trade. What is the public policy position of the government? Does the government agree that that is the route we should be pursuing?

Should we be pursuing freer trade, free trade, unrestricted trade? And how are we pursuing that with the rest of the country?

As the Premier knows, our first job in British Columbia is to have British Columbia's voice have full amplification at the national table. One of the concerns that I have is that the minister responsible, I think, is just about now thinking to himself: "I guess this is going to be an issue." We know there are major issues that are going to come up that revolve around it, and British Columbia is the major player that has in fact suffered under the softwood lumber agreement that was signed previously.

We are losing the opportunity to shape the agenda. I suggest we've lost it. We're now responding to it. The challenge in British Columbia is for the government to say, "This is where we're going; this is what we want; this is how we intend to get there," so that we can pursue that at the national table and follow that pursuit up with the negotiation at the American table, which is going to take place in a very uncertain time with regard to their politics and a very uncertain time even with regard to their focus.

I am concerned we've lost the agenda, and I wonder how we're going to grab the agenda back in British Columbia. This changes in 2001 -- April 1, 2001. We have to be prepared; we don't have much time to set a public course of action. I guess my point to the Premier is that I'd like to know what public course of action the government intends to pursue -- so we can bring British Columbians together around that public course of action, so we can bring Ottawa together around that public course of action, so we can make sure we succeed when we deal with the United States.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I share the opposition leader's concern. I have a view on this, and I have said very clearly that I support free trade. But I also have to look at the issue of the raw log exports, and, as the leader in British Columbia, I also have to look at whether or not the industry that's the backbone of the economy in British Columbia is in consonance with that approach. The difficulty that we currently have is that the industry isn't of one mind on that issue.

There are huge divisions, and I think the challenge is to bring them around to one point of view so that we can advance that point of view -- a general consensus, because you can't have absolute consent or agreement on these kinds of issues. So I have a very clear perspective on it. I support free trade, with appropriate provisions for the protection of raw log exports and things of that nature.

We will pursue that agenda. We have a federal-provincial working group meeting taking place, I believe, on July 5. Lee Doney, the deputy minister, is coming in to brief us with respect to the latest developments that have taken place on the ground, so that we can begin to do what the hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking.

G. Campbell: Once again, I suggest to the Premier that it might be better if we found a process which would include all members of this House, or all parties of this House, so that we could speak with one voice for British Columbia politically, as well as one voice publicly. I'd welcome his suggestions on how we might do that.

I have one last item. I know there are many, many more with regard to the federal-provincial agenda. Actually, I have two, quickly. One is with regard to