Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 25 -- Thursday, August 23, 2001

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Time

Committee of Supply
	Office of the Premier estimates. Hon. G. Campbell
	Vote 9: Office of the Premier	1005
	J. MacPhail
	J. Kwan

Hon. G. Collins: We're trying to schedule a Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills Committee for 10:15 this morning, and I understand that we require leave of the House to allow that committee to sit while the House is sitting as well. I request that leave.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the office of the Premier.

J. MacPhail: I think perhaps we have one or two more questions in the area of intergovernmental relations. I think we'll be finished then, so we could complete that work first.

Yesterday I asked the Premier to give consideration to information around health care funding in relation to the federal contribution to British Columbia's health care. The annual Premiers' conference dealt with this issue. I read the communiqué from the annual Premiers' conference, but that was a while ago. What was the exact nature of the discussion and the commitments that were made amongst the Premiers, and what next steps occur with the federal government to pursue the Premiers' point of view?

Hon. G. Campbell: Three specific things. The Premiers were very clear that while the federal government had some difficult financial issues to deal with when they took office, they have clearly got those managed now. There is a belief that it is time to move back to the 18 percent of health funding. There is a belief that it's time for the federal government to complete its commitment to a dispute resolution mechanism under the Canada Health Act, and there is a commitment of the Premiers that the ceiling on equalization should be removed, as we recognize that as one of the challenges that was faced by Maritime provinces in providing a fundamental base for health care services.

J. MacPhail: So what are the steps in terms of are there meetings planned with the Prime Minister, or is the matter delegated to the Health minister's table?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Health ministers will be meeting in Newfoundland, I believe, at the end of September. Each Premier is back now gathering information. Finance ministers have already prepared a report, which is public, and I'm glad to make it available to the member, if the member would like. The Premiers are working on the communication strategy as well as looking at best practices. The Premiers of Ontario and Quebec are working on a number of issues with regard to pushing us forward on the federal agenda. We will be in contact in September to touch base on a number of those issues so that we can progress to a special meeting of the Premiers in British Columbia in January of next year so we can make a presentation to the Romanow commission with regard to how we can better manage the health system. There will be ongoing dialogue with not just the Prime Minister but, obviously, the federal Minister of Finance.

J. MacPhail: One of the issues that I recall being a difference of opinion between provinces and the federal government was the area of intrusion of the federal government into the actual delivery of health care at the citizen level — the provincial level. Of course, we know that the providing of health care services is a provincial responsibility, so there was always a tension that if the federal government were to raise its contribution — to stop its cutbacks — to the provision of health care funding, they would want a corollary intrusion into the way health care services are provided in the provinces.

I know that the reason why this was controversial was because there are differing needs, regionally, of citizens. In British Columbia we have a high-needs population in the off-reserve aboriginal community. We have a very, very large multicultural community that requires health care or that should have health care in a way that meets their needs that they are used to. So it makes sense that the provision of health services be a provincial responsibility. Is there any sense from the Premier that the federal government is looking to pursue intrusion into the demands on what health care services provinces deliver?

Hon. G. Campbell: Certainly, I think the federal government wants to be sure that there are health standards that are met across the country. But one of the things that I think was significant at the Premiers' conference was that the Premiers said quite deliberately that health care is a provincial responsibility. The Premiers will let the federal government know what they can do to help in the provision of that responsibility. I think that is a belief that's shared across the country and across the provinces.

J. MacPhail: What is the Premier's view as an importance…? Or will he be pursuing the matter with the federal government about a national Pharmacare program?

Hon. G. Campbell: We have all established the fact. The province of Quebec clearly does not want to have a national Pharmacare program. Their position is that health care is solely a provincial responsibility. In January we will be focusing specifically on the variety of Pharmacare programs which are available in nine of the ten provinces. We will be looking at best practices. We will be looking at standards that are being set. The fundamental belief is that there isn't a province that doesn't want to have safe pharmaceuticals that are available. We think we can set provincial standards and have a common provincial standard across the country. That's one of the things we are going to strive to do. It will remain under the provincial responsibility, however.

There are a couple of areas where the federal government may, indeed, be helpful to us in terms of having the most cost-effective pharmaceutical regime, if you want, in Canada — where patients get the choices they need, where we can manage our costs. There is not a province in the country that isn't feeling the pressure of skyrocketing pharmaceutical costs. That's why we're going to look at best practices and standard practices across the country. That's one of our goals as we come together in January.

J. MacPhail: Is British Columbia taking a lead, assigned a lead, in any of these areas in terms of health care at the provincial, territorial and federal levels?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the Chair of the annual Premiers' conference, the Minister of Health Services and the Minister of Health Planning for British Columbia will be taking leadership roles in terms of human resource development and looking at gathering together the various pharmaceutical regimes and best practices across the country. They will be leading those endeavours as we move towards the January conference.

J. MacPhail: I noted that the government is continuing to pursue the lawsuit against tobacco companies for recovery of health care costs, and I applaud the Premier for doing that. Are there any other provinces that are either pursuing a lawsuit against the tobacco companies separately or joining with British Columbia's lead on this?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't answer that question, but I'll be glad to get it for the member. I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of all of the various legal proceedings that are underway.

J. MacPhail: I was just wondering whether that was an issue that the Premiers had discussed at the annual Premiers' conference.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I think there may be some items on intergovernmental relations, but they will be just tangential.

The next area I'd like to pursue with the Premier is the establishment of the number of committees since assuming government. I don't know whether the Premier or his staff have a complete list of all the committees that the Premier has established. I'm aware of the government caucus committees and cabinet committees. There are several councils, boards and task forces that the Premier has established; for instance, the Progress Board, the high-tech council, the core review committee and the pine beetle task force. Yesterday we had a committee established to look at the WCB regulation on smoking. Those are the ones that I am aware of.

Let me just try to explain to the Premier where I'm headed on this. It is very, very important to get input from all aspects of British Columbia — regionally, ethnically, socioeconomically, business, working people and environmentalists. I don't mean, by excluding or forgetting to name them, that other matters are not important. For instance, I think there should be gender balance and that sort of stuff.

What I really want to know from the Premier is: in setting up what appear to be numerous committees, how does he see decisions flowing from the work of the various committees? How does the Progress Board fit into the cabinet committees that have been set up? What role do the government caucus committees play in relationship to the core review process? What, if anything, does the pine beetle task force have to do with either the softwood lumber dispute or a review? Is the Premier, through his Minister of Forests, linking those two in terms of changing the stumpage system?

I realize that's a very general question. I do want to spend some time on this, because I think it's important for British Columbians to understand how the decision-making will flow from these committees.

Hon. G. Campbell: Obviously, there are a number of areas of concern that you have to confront when you're in government, as the member opposite knows. Let me deal with some of the committees that have been established.

The Premier's Technology Council is established from a number of top-quality CEOs, academics and research leaders from different parts of the province. Really, the thrust of that is to make sure government understands that the potential for technology is within government as well as we understand the impediments we put to the development of a technology industry in the province. One of our commitments was to create the fastest-growing technology industry in the country. If we're going to do that, I think it's always worthwhile to have advice from outside of government, and that's

what the technology industry will do. They will make recommendations. They will outline, I'm sure, policy objectives. They will have quarterly meetings in public, where the public can come and listen to the reports that are developed and brought forward. One of the things we'd like the public to do is get some literacy with regard to this.

The Progress Board, on the other hand, is a board that is established from leaders in the economy who will set standards for British Columbia to see, competitive standards that allow us to be held to account by an outside board. They'll make an annual report that will be public to the people of the province. They will hold government to account for the competitive regime that we've put in place, for the environmental standards we meet, for the social goals and guidelines that we set for ourselves as well as for economic ones. Those will be boards that will report publicly, that will be advisory to government and that will be part of the government decision-making process.

As I mentioned yesterday, the vast majority of committees that we have will be reporting into the government structure; they will report their findings to ministers or departments. Those ministers, if they decide this is on their priority list, will bring that forward to the Agenda and Priorities committee, which will try and be sure that as government moves forward, we're doing it in an organized and thoughtful way. Agenda and Priorities may move policy development matters for review to a government caucus committee, and the Chairs of those committees report through to cabinet. Cabinet makes decisions and brings decisions as necessary before the Legislature for the Legislature's consideration.

J. MacPhail: Is there a flow chart? I noted during one of the open cabinet meetings…. And I'm sure the Premier will be pleased to know that I do watch the open cabinet meetings. I can't actually travel to Victoria to attend them when the session is out, but I did watch it on TV. I think it was the first open cabinet meeting where there was a presentation of a flow chart on how decision-making would work. That was prior to many of these councils and progress boards being implemented. Has there been a revised flow chart on decision-making? Is it updated regularly? Is it possible to have a copy of that?

Hon. G. Campbell: The flow chart that was presented at the open cabinet meeting remains the flow chart, and yes, it's possible to have a copy of it.

J. MacPhail: No, the one that was presented in cabinet is what I meant. I was asking for an updated organization chart.

How does the Premier anticipate dealing with contradictory messages that he may receive? For instance, let me just surmise here. The Technology Council that the Premier has set up…. That industry is clearly, as we see each and every day, being subjected to forces that are not of the making in British Columbia. I don't think British Columbia's economy can in any way be held responsible for what happened to Nortel, for instance. The incredible plummeting of Nortel Communications Inc. is having a huge impact across Canada on the technology industry.

The pursuit of Microsoft from an anti-trust point of view in the United States is having an impact on the technology industry here in British Columbia. So I would assume there might be some recommendations that would come from the Technology Council that would be very particular about shoring up its sector or its industry. I know that in the past the Chair of the Technology Council has made recommendations about tax changes for the industry.

On the other hand, you'll have the Progress Board, whose job…. I'm not sure. Is it the Progress Board's job to monitor and recommend on economic initiatives or just to monitor? Then you have the Minister of State for Deregulation, who may be making recommendations that have an impact on the Technology Council and the work of the Progress Board. So how does the Premier…? How is it that he works in terms of collating all of the information and making a decision as a result of the receipt of all of that information?

Hon. G. Campbell: The purpose of establishing a Progress Board and a Technology Council is both to establish a public framework and to build public understanding of those issues. We've been very clear in the direction we would like to go. As that information is made available, we will have to make decisions on what our response would be. I can't deal with a hypothetical situation.

We have been very clear that we want British Columbia to be competitive, for example, in terms of the economy. We want to be recognized for our environmental sustainability and our stewardship. Those are things that are our goals as a government, which are shared, I'm sure, by all members of the Legislature. As those ideas are brought forward, they may be dealt with by ministers and brought forward to Agenda and Priorities. They may then be taken to government caucus committees. There is a whole range of issues that we have to deal with. We'll focus on the agenda items that we have placed in the New Era document, so we can move forward. Obviously, as we do these issues, we will have to have some balance in what we do.

Let me say specifically what the committees are not about. They are not about dealing with individual industry problems such as Nortel or Microsoft, as the member mentioned. They're about creating a broad framework of competitiveness so that British Columbia has an opportunity to thrive in the economy, so that British Columbians have the jobs that they need.

I think one of the challenges for government is to open it up so we hear from people outside on how we're doing. The Progress Board creates an accountability framework for all of us to pursue. The member

opposite may find that we're somehow falling short on one of the standards that the Progress Board thinks we should be pursuing. She'll be able to use that as a tool next year in estimates or the year following.

The Technology Council may have some ideas on what we should do with deregulation or how we should work with the federal government to maximize our benefits or how we should work with the consul general in Los Angeles to maximize the benefits of what's actually taking place in the technology industry in the United States — to help provide for the human resources we need to build a thriving technology industry. I don't prejudge what the committees will do, and I don't prejudge what the Legislature will do. I do think it's worth having the information brought to us. I welcome that information, and I welcome the contribution that the members of those committees will make.

The member opposite should know that this information is all public. In fact, we want to make it as public as we can. I'm not sure if it's all up on the website yet, but it will all be up on the website. The public will be able to participate. I think there are some very exciting new opportunities for all of us as we create an accountability framework and an economic framework that allows us to do our job. Frankly, that will help the member opposite do her job.

J. MacPhail: I don't ever expect the Premier to have to make comment on hypotheticals. I was only using a hypothetical to try to get an understanding of how decision-making is done in the Premier's office. Yes, it's very important to consult and get a broad range of views, but I assume the Premier isn't getting those views for the sake of getting those views. I assume the Premier has set up this multitude of inputs at various levels to guide him in making decisions. I assume that the Premier will be making decisions about economic direction, program direction and environmental direction. That's all.

I'm trying to figure out, once the Premier has all of this input — and I of course know the Premier doesn't…. Nobody in British Columbia could possibly deal with the situation of Nortel or Microsoft, but I was using that as an example of outside influences having an impact on a sector of the economy. If that sector of the economy gets in trouble, there may be competing interests from the Technology Council, the Minister of State for Deregulation and the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise in terms of eliminating subsidies. Will the final decisions be made at the cabinet table?

Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite, I think, is simply identifying the challenge that government faces. We are always grappling with competing interests, and that is the challenge any government faces. What we've tried to do for British Columbians is say, with our New Era document and our election platform — which we intend to honour — that this is the direction we would like to take the province. A vast number of British Columbians — in fact the vast majority of British Columbians — agreed with that direction, and we now have an obligation to carry it through.

Part of that carry-through is to make sure, as we make decisions, that information is available to us — information not just from the standard sources within government but from sources outside government. I believe that by bringing the public in, by having open, public boards — like the Progress Board and like the Technology Council — we raise the public level of discussion, understanding and debate, and I believe we'll end up with better decisions in terms of government.

Where do we wrestle with those? We wrestle with them right through the entire decision-making process. As I mentioned earlier, policy initiatives are brought to the ministers' offices. They may decide it's time to bring forward those issues to Agenda and Priorities. They come through government caucus committees. The Chairs report to the cabinet. The cabinet makes decisions after robust conversations about the direction we would like to go and whether or not we're meeting the objectives we set for the citizens of British Columbia. We bring decisions here to the Legislature, and unlike past Legislatures, when those efforts are made and those decisions are brought forward, there will be an open debate about it. There will be the inclusion of the Legislature in those decision-making processes, and I think we'll make the best decisions as a result of that.

J. MacPhail: Could I just use a practical example then, and that's the announcement yesterday of the caucus committee looking at the future of smoking or non-smoking regulation with the WCB. I appreciate this very important issue because the previous government did grapple exactly with this issue. I also know that there are widely disparate views held on the matter of smoke-free environments in public places.

So the Premier has appointed a caucus committee to consult with interested parties on what the future of smoking at workplaces should be. We have the Workers Compensation Board that has a Workers Compensation Act that is pretty much self-regulatory because, of course, government doesn't pay any money to the Workers Compensation Board. It's completely funded by employer and employee contributions. But there is a section of the Workers Compensation Act that says: "The minister may…." There's one section of it.

I know we looked at that very carefully, and the previous government decided that, first, that section had never been used before and, second, that there was no reason, with the smoking issue, to invoke that section. It was not appropriate to start by having the minister invoke his authority over the WCB's independence on the basis of the smoking ban.

Nevertheless, we have a new government, and there's a different way of doing things, so now we have a caucus committee. We have the Workers Compensation Board that's governed independently of government and has representatives of the employer community and the worker community. They have their own legal responsibilities. Then we have cabinet. How does the Premier see the decision-making flow on that particular issue?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the minister has correctly decided to hear from the people of the province who are concerned about this while maintaining the principle of protecting the health of workers. We're doing this in an open way. I am sure the matter will be resolved. I think it's important that the public have input. We saw previously, with the Workers Compensation Board, that sometimes they need help on that. We're giving them the help. We think it's a positive relationship between the government and the Workers Compensation Board, and we intend to pursue it in that light.

J. MacPhail: But I'm still not clear on who makes the final decision. Workers compensation issues are extremely complex. I know that the Premier knows that the biggest caseload that MLAs have is among matters of workers compensation. Of course, that's to do with the long, long history — decades-old history — that has existed throughout western economies of not allowing matters of worker safety and health to go into the courts. The Workers Compensation Board was set up to ensure that there was a fully funded system independent of the courts to deal with issues of worker health and safety both from the employer point of view and from the employee point of view.

That independence is paramount. By the token of employers and employees giving up their right to sue, they were assured that there would be complete independence from interference through the Workers Compensation Board of deciding those issues, of adjudicating the issues of worker health and safety. That's why the Workers Compensation Board is completely funded separate from government coffers.

I know there are pressures that the Workers Compensation Board faces each and every day about decisions it makes around worker health and safety. They sit there as a group and decide as best as they can a balanced approach to protecting the interests of worker health and safety and the requirements for employers and the economy to flourish. Any intrusion into the decision-making of the Workers Compensation Board has to be taken with the greatest of care. It's not just about that one issue. It can have a domino effect in this way. If the Workers Compensation Board is interfered with once in their decision-making and ability to regulate worker health and safety, it can be done twice. Then it undermines the whole system of keeping workers compensation out of the courts.

Why wouldn't a worker whose health is being affected by secondhand smoke in a pub say: "Well, the Workers Compensation Board isn't defending my interests, so I'm getting a double whammy. The Workers Compensation Board isn't defending my interests because of government interference, and yet I'm denied the right to take my employer to court and to sue"? It has to be done very carefully, and that's why previous governments have chosen not to interfere and not to exercise the right that the Minister of Labour is now invoking.

I'm making an appeal to the Premier on this issue. Actually, let's paint a scenario that the Workers Compensation Board invokes a regulation around smoking in the next three or four weeks. What happens to the caucus committee?

Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, let me say that the Workers Compensation Board clearly has serious problems. While the member opposite stands and talks about interference, I guess she forgot that it was her government that removed the Workers Compensation Board entirely and replaced it with a panel of administrators. What we have said is that there will be a committee that will advise the Workers Compensation Board on how they can move forward with the program of protecting the health of workers in a sensible way that recognizes the vast diversity of British Columbia and applies some common sense. I believe that's a critical step for us to take.

Secondly, let me say that there is a whole series of government decision-making activities that take place. There are decisions that are made by the Legislature. There are decisions that are made by cabinet. There are decision that are made by the WCB. Nothing has changed here with regard to that, except what we're saying to the Workers Compensation Board is that we believe there is a better way, we have concerns about the impacts of what you're suggesting and whether or not you understand them, and we'd like to help you deal with this. I think that when we say that, we're saying that we want to help you so the health of workers is protected.

J. MacPhail: The Workers Compensation Board has already done all of that work.

I'm trying to be very civil this morning, because I want to be. Again, this is an extremely important issue, and I would just ask the Premier to try to go back in history and put the context of why the WCB changed from a model of governors to administrators. I'm sure that many of his supporters and friends will be able to fill him in on the reasons for that.

What I need help with, then, is: what are the parameters of invoking that section of the act? Does the Premier see other matters coming up that would be about worker health and safety and that should be put to a caucus committee? For instance, just this week the coalition of small businesses and the Council of Construction Associations are upset and are asking the Premier to change the rate of assessments they have to pay. All of that is done independently of government. The rate of assessments that are determined on an industry-by-industry or sector-by-sector basis is without government interference, because, of course, the rate of assessment is determined by the standard of health and safety that's achieved at a workplace or in a particular sector. Because these groups have lobbied vociferously for this government to interfere in that, is that the next step in terms of setting up a caucus committee?

Hon. G. Campbell: I haven't any plans with regard to this, but let me just say this. The member must have been happy with the legislation, because she left it in place over a period of ten years. All the minister is doing is acting within the legislation, which has been there for some time. The health of workers is obviously of serious importance; that's why we have a legislative committee that's going to help the Workers Compensation Board with how that can be applied in a commonsense way.

J. MacPhail: I've actually heard this as a recurring theme amongst Liberal members: "Well, if you don't like it, why didn't you change it?" Well, here's why in this particular circumstance. There has to be an avenue available if the Workers Compensation Board is committing fraud, colluding with one side against the other or is not fulfilling its legal duties — of course. Workers and employers have to have some recourse. But it's also interesting to note that the section was never used, because those circumstances didn't arise with the Workers Compensation Board. So that recurring theme just simply doesn't wash, when indeed this government, for the very first time in decades-old history of that legislation, decides to invoke that section. I think it's fair enough that when the Liberal government is invoking a section to, some might say, undo the work of the Workers Compensation Board…. The way the government is going to proceed on that is of paramount importance to working people and employers.

If I were a worker in a bar or pub who will now be subject to secondhand smoke — and I have no understanding of when that may come to an end — I might choose to leave my employ, with no understanding of when my exposure to secondhand smoke may end. Or I may take comfort in the fact of the Premier standing up and saying: "The consultation will occur, but at the end of the day it's a decision of the Workers Compensation Board about how to proceed on this regulation." That may give some hope to workers in the hospitality sector.

So they're not frivolous matters, about trying to understand the decision-making process on this matter. It's that every British Columbian who will now be subject to secondhand smoke for the next 18 months needs to make decisions about their work.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I thought I was getting advice from the member. But he's just reading the news clippings aloud.

This is such an important health issue. Frankly, I think the Premier knows how important this health issue is, because the Premier in the past has shown incredible insight and compassion for British Columbians who are ill or injured. I also know that the Premier lives amongst many British Columbians who want this matter decided once and for all. I also know that the Premier understands the consequences of interfering with worker safety and health.

The website of the Ministry of Health says that 500 people — I think it says 500 people — will die from secondhand smoke in British Columbia this year. There are going to be about 6,000 that will die from tobacco-related illness, but 500 will die specifically because of secondhand smoke. The consequences are huge. The consequences of getting this decision wrong and not doing it in a way that can be fully explained to the public are huge. I really do make what I can only describe as an impassioned plea to the Premier that this has to be about worker safety and health, and it can't be about anything else.

J. MacPhail: Did you want to continue reading, or…? No. Okay. I'll move on to other issues.

I want to go, if I may, to the Premier's office. I know the Premier made some opening remarks, so we don't have to spend a lot of time on the expansion of the Premier's office. The Premier said that the staff complement, and I believe the budget as well, was exactly the same as the previous government's.

J. MacPhail: Okay, sorry. I may have misunderstood that. I just want to make sure that we understand that. Also, if the Premier could note where other budgets have been reduced as a result of things being moved into the Premier's office. We'll start with the deputy ministers. There are six that report to the Premier's office, and there were two under the New Democrats. Where were other deputy ministers that have moved into the Premier's office reduced in the government service?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me be clear that the cash budget for the Premier's office is up. The full-time-equivalent complement of staff people is the same when you reallocate. There are a number of reallocations that have taken place. The Crown agencies secretariat is now…. This is one of the reasons that the cash component is up; we are not requiring ministries to absorb those costs. We think it is a true cost of the Premier's office. There were additional costs as a result of the new public affairs bureau being brought in under the Premier's office. Those things are reflected in the budget, and as I mentioned — and I'm glad to get this for the member — there are 198 full-time-equivalents today. If you take those positions out of the other ministries, etc., you will find that there were 198 full-time-equivalents prior to the transition taking place.

J. MacPhail: Okay, the FTE complement of 198 is the same and has been gathered up from other parts of government, but there has been a cash increase. Can the Premier outline the areas of the cash increase that I assume, then, are overall increases that haven't just

been moved from other budgets but are an increase in the funding of the Premier's office? I'd appreciate the amounts.

Hon. G. Campbell: Approximately $1 million is covered in the special projects — the core services review, the Progress Board support, etc. The chief information officer is a new position. That requires roughly $500,000. Again, I'm glad to get the specifics of those for the member opposite so she knows exactly what the dollar amounts are.

J. MacPhail: That's what we're doing right now, so I'll just continue. So $1 million is for special projects, $500,000 for CIO. Is that it for the public affairs bureau?

Hon. G. Campbell: The amount for the Crown agencies secretariat was $3.529 million. It was removed from ministry budgets and brought properly into the Premier's office. That was previously, as the member opposite knows, absorbed, charged back to all of the ministries.

There is $500,000 for the Premier's Technology Council, there's $350,000 to support the CIO, and there is $89,000 for general administrative costs as well as $5 million that is now budgeted under the CIO's initiatives for e-government initiatives throughout the government. That will be charged back to ministries.

J. MacPhail: That's the new money. I assume that we're talking about new money. The Crown agencies secretariat was not new money, or was it?

Hon. G. Campbell: Previously, the Crown agencies secretariat budgets were recovered and hidden in ministries. We are bringing it up front and saying that we're not hiding it in ministries any longer. It is part of the Premier's office budget.

J. MacPhail: Is the public affairs bureau the gathering-up of communications departments or part of communication budgets from other ministries? Is there any new money under the public affairs bureau for polling or consultants' fees?

Hon. G. Campbell: The public affairs bureau is simply the transferring under the Premier's office of what the previous government called the government policy and communications office.

J. MacPhail: One of the things that I note from what I tried to put together with the budget — and I'm sure the Premier has more information that would help me here, because it does seem to be a bit of a change — is that under the Premier's office there's now $3.5 million for outside consultants. Is that money that's been transferred from other ministries? Perhaps he could explain that.

Hon. G. Campbell: The only new money is the roughly $1.5 million that I mentioned earlier. All the rest is transferred from other ministries.

Hon. G. Campbell: The only new money is the roughly $1.5 million that I talked to you about earlier. The rest is transferred.

J. MacPhail: What is the role of the chief information officer, and who is that?

Hon. G. Campbell: The chief information officer's name is Lee Denny. He was working for the previous government. His role is to be the advocate for e-government throughout the government. Everyone who talks about moving forward and taking advantage of these new opportunities points out the requirement for dedicated leadership. Mr. Denny will provide that, working with ministries across government so we have a standardized platform and a standardized response that will mean far better value for taxpayers.

J. MacPhail: The special projects — for instance, the core services review — have extra funding. Does the funding out of the Premier's office go to staff the member for Delta South — I think it's the member for Delta South — who is chairing the core services review? What is that money being expended on?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, the only new money that we're seeing, that we've asked for in the Premier's office, is $1.5 million. The core services review…. There are no resources that go to the member for Delta South. The resources that are used for the services review are basically administrative services and support to the committee and to the deputy to the Premier.

J. MacPhail: So will those expenditures out of the Premier's office to do a review of whether services are valuable or not be charged back to the ministries?

J. MacPhail: We actually did do an FOI of the salaries for the various staff in the Premier's office. The FOI that we got came back with all of the staff remuneration, but there was a blank next to the assistant deputy minister of cabinet and committee support. That was an FOI from the Premier's office. I'm wondering if you could now fill in the blank. That was an FOI request for staff remuneration. The woman's name is Kathryn Dawson.

Hon. G. Campbell: I do not have the specific number with me right now. It is an ADM position, and it will be paid within the ADM range.

J. MacPhail: I'd appreciate the exact remuneration, because of course, ADMs have a range of salary. It was just interesting to note that it was left blank.

Was there an executive search done for the positions of deputy minister and ADMs in the Premier's office?

Hon. G. Campbell: There was not a search done for that specific position. That specific position was appointed because of Ms. Dawson's experience with the process in Alberta, as I mentioned to the member last night.

J. MacPhail: So was that position filled…? Ms. Dawson came from Alberta to work directly for the Premier's office?

Hon. G. Campbell: No. Ms. Dawson worked in the opposition offices for, I think, about a year and a half prior to the election.

J. MacPhail: When was Ms. Dawson hired as an assistant deputy minister to the Premier's office?

J. MacPhail: My colleague has some questions around the public affairs bureau specifically. I can't believe that people pay as much attention to these matters of debate in the Legislature. I'm actually heartened by it. Last night the Premier said the example for the government caucus committees came from the model of Alberta. Just for the information of the Premier, we've had information from the Alberta Legislature, where Mr. Klein's government has six — all Progressive Conservative — standing policy committees. They're called standing policy committees, and they're all government members. They're not funded out of the Legislative Assembly budget, and in fact, they're funded the way that I was asking the Premier to fund them, which was out of ministry budgets. The example is, of course, the standing policy committee of the government caucus in Alberta on health and community living, which is funded out of the Ministry of Health budget. That's just for the record.

J. Kwan: In relation to the public affairs bureau, I understand that one of the reasons the Premier's office's budget has increased dramatically is because of the centralization of all of government's communications within the office. My first question is: how many people work in the bureau?

Hon. G. Campbell: There's no change in the number of people in these positions from what there was before. The public affairs bureau is currently undergoing a review with the director of public affairs, the deputy minister of the public affairs bureau. This is an endeavour not to centralize but to provide shared services across government so that we maximize the value to the taxpayer. It's 55 full-time-equivalents.

The second point I would make with regard to the public affairs bureau is, once again, that it is actually making visible what was invisible previously. I think that's very important as we build a new regime of open accountability.

Hon. G. Campbell: The members of the public affairs bureau are directly responsible to the deputy minister of the public affairs bureau, and she reports directly to the deputy minister of the executive council, who is responsible to me.

J. Kwan: How does the public affairs bureau interact with ministry communications shops?

Hon. G. Campbell: One of the changes we made was that we discovered when we came to government and to cabinet that there was far too much worry about how someone was going to communicate something. Indeed, communications were part of the cabinet decision-making process. We felt it was important that we have a cabinet decision-making process that dealt with what was the best public policy. When we decided that, we would communicate it. The public affairs bureau has, I believe, six separate communications councils who work with ministries across government. Our goal is to provide a shared communication service that provides the public with the information they require. That is the task that's been set before the deputy minister. She is currently undertaking a review. That review should be complete sometime in the next few weeks.

J. Kwan: If I have understood the Premier correctly then, the decisions are made through the public affairs bureau, then they are communicated to the communications shop within the ministry, and then, I guess, press releases are issued. Is that the process?

Hon. G. Campbell: There are still currently a number of communications staff members throughout the ministries. The public affairs bureau's task is to try and coordinate those responses. A cabinet decision will be made; the public affairs bureau has a responsibility for providing the coordinated information response that's necessary. As well as the public affairs bureau, there is the director of communications for the Premier's office, Andy Orr, and I think those groups work together as we move forward with communications.

J. Kwan: Do the ministry communications directors also report to the bureau, or do they report to the ministry?

Hon. G. Campbell: The directors of communication to ministries currently report to the bureau. However, in the first 70-some-odd days, that transition has not been completed. This is clearly a change in how communications are operated within government.

J. Kwan: So once the transition is completed, then all of the communications directors within the ministry will report to the bureau?

Hon. G. Campbell: That is the proposal, and that is what the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau is working on now.

J. Kwan: Do all of the ads and press releases get vetted through the bureau before they're released?

J. Kwan: Do they go to the minister's office first? Does the minister get to see the releases before they get vetted through the bureau?

Hon. G. Campbell: Ministers are certainly aware of the press releases that are going out before they are sent out. I believe ministers are far more actively involved in a press release at some times than at other times, but at all times ministers are included.

J. Kwan: No, no, the question is not whether or not the minister gets to see the releases before they are sent out to the public. The question is: does the minister get to see the releases before they get sent to the bureau?

Hon. G. Campbell: As we go through this transition, I think it's fair to say — and perhaps after it, it will be fair to say — there are some releases that are started in the bureau and sent to the minister, and there are some releases that are started in the ministry and sent to the bureau. At any rate, this is a service to the minister.

J. Kwan: After the transition period is completed, does the Premier anticipate that all of the releases would be issued from the bureau, and then once they are issued from the bureau, they arrive at the minister's desk?

Hon. G. Campbell: No, I anticipate that the releases will be issued by the ministry and the minister.

J. Kwan: If that's the case…. Earlier I asked a question about the communications shop and communications directors within the ministry, and the Premier had replied that after the transition all of the communications shops' work will actually be vetted through the bureau and then released publicly. So is the case now that it would go from the bureau and then to the minister and then be released publicly? Is the case now reversed?

Hon. G. Campbell: The role of the public affairs bureau is to ensure that we have the maximum benefits in terms of investment for the taxpayer. The development of a shared service across government is a well-known management technique. It is known to be more effective in terms of both cost and delivery. This is a service that is being provided to ministries. It is a coordinating role so that government is acting in unison and is reinforcing the various objectives that we have.

J. Kwan: I'm just trying to get an understanding of the process so that I'm completely clear around it. As I understand it, after the transitional period, the communications shop within each ministry would report to the bureau. Therefore, the releases and the like, the ads and so on, would be approved by the bureau and then issued publicly. In that process, where does the minister fit in? Does the minister get to see a draft of the release before it goes to the bureau, or is it the other way around?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not sure what's not clear about this. The public affairs bureau serves the ministries. It is a shared service that goes across government. They work with the minister and the ministry. They provide professional advice to the minister and the ministry in a coordinated fashion so that we maximize the benefits of the communications dollars invested and make sure that we are speaking with a unified, concerted voice in the province.

J. Kwan: I guess what's not clear to me is that the bureau actually reports to the Premier's office, not to the minister's office. So early on the Premier said there's no centralization of the work through this office. However, if the process is such that the communications shops in each of the respective ministries actually report to the bureau, which in turn reports to the Premier's office, then the direction ultimately comes from the Premier's office and not from the minister and the ministry. There is a distinct difference in terms of where direction comes from and the centralization of power, if you will. I'm trying to get a better understanding of how that process works and at what point the minister gets to interject in terms of the issuance of an ad or the issuance of a press release. Or do they not get to engage in that process, and it simply comes after the fact?

Hon. G. Campbell: The ministries, the ministers and the public affairs bureau work together. The minister is involved throughout; the ministry is involved throughout. We provide a coordinated service so taxpayers get better benefit for the investment that's made.

J. Kwan: Who makes the final decision for approval of press releases and for ads, etc.?

J. Kwan: I understand that people may work together. They may offer opinions. But if there were differing opinions between one shop versus the other, the bureau versus the communications shop from the ministry, who makes the final decision on what version is issued?

Hon. G. Campbell: The ministers are accountable for the decisions that are made in their ministry.

J. Kwan: Just so I'm completely clear, then, the decision rests with the minister to make the final decision?

J. Kwan: Are the people who work with the public affairs bureau career civil servants, or are they political appointments?

Hon. G. Campbell: They are largely members of the professional public service. I believe there are some contracts that are currently in place, but they have all been issued through the deputy minister to the public affairs bureau.

J. Kwan: Was there an RFP process associated with the contracts that were entered into?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't tell you whether there was a request for proposal for the contracts. They were all put in place by the previous government. Those people have simply been moved over into the public affairs bureau.

J. Kwan: The contracts that now exist with the public affairs bureau are inherited contracts? There are no new contracts entered into by this government?

Hon. G. Campbell: The individual contracts that have been entered into were done by the previous government, yes.

J. Kwan: I just want to ask this question: did this new government enter into new contracts with any agencies or individuals?

Hon. G. Campbell: I am sure we have entered into new contracts with agencies, but not with individuals.

Hon. G. Campbell: My deputy informs me that there may have been one with one individual, and we're glad to get that for the member.

J. Kwan: I would like to request a list of the contracts that have been entered into by this new government and whether they're organizations or groups or individuals. And can we get that in a timely fashion? I'm wondering when we can expect that list.

Hon. G. Campbell: I will endeavour to get you that. I will certainly get you the list, and we'll endeavour to do it as quickly as possible.

J. Kwan: With the list, I'm also requesting that the Premier provide the amounts of the contracts and the tasks associated with them. I wonder if he could enclose that information in the list.

J. Kwan: There was a July 10 communications planning meeting. Would it have involved these people: Leslie White, Richard Chambers, Andrew Little, Ann Bozoian and — pardon my ESL; I will spell the last name — Marg LeGuilloux?

The Chair: Is there a question on that, member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant?

J. Kwan: My question to the Premier is: at the July 10 communications planning meeting, were these people involved?

J. Kwan: There was apparently a July 10 communications planning meeting with lots and lots of people. My question is whether or not these people were involved in that meeting and what the agenda was for this meeting. There is an FOI request being put through. The information was supposed to be provided to us by August 17, and we have not yet received it to date.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to follow up on the FOI request. I'm not aware of the meeting that the member is referring to. If the member has a series of questions on that and she'd like to submit them, I'd be glad to get the answers for her.

J. Kwan: We have submitted the questions, and we've not yet received the response. Certainly, the Premier is welcome to look at the request for FOI and to hopefully expedite the response and the information that we're seeking. As I mentioned earlier, we were seeking the information. It was supposed to be released on August 17, and we have not yet received it to date.

My other question relating to the bureau is: does the bureau undertake any polling?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not aware of the bureau undertaking any polling, but I should tell the member opposite that I'm not aware of the day-to-day activities of the bureau.

J. Kwan: Presumably, staff that is accompanying the Premier will be able to advise him accordingly. So again I ask the question: has the bureau to date undertaken any polling? If yes, in what areas and what was

the budget associated with it? If no, is it the intention of the bureau that it will be undertaking polling at a future date?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm advised by the staff that they are not aware of any polling that has taken place under the public affairs bureau. I am also advised that the public affairs bureau may well undertake polling as and when they see fit. Should they make that recommendation, it would be considered at the time.

J. Kwan: I would request that the Premier would undertake to ensure that any polling that has been done and the budget associated with the polling that's been done to date by the bureau be provided to myself and to my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings. I'm also wondering: what is the budget for the polling and opinion research for the bureau?

Hon. G. Campbell: There is a budget for outside services with the public affairs bureau. We are looking for that amount. That's the budget from which polling would be paid for.

J. Kwan: While staff is looking for the answer to that question, I just want to get a confirmation from the Premier that he will commit to providing the polling information that has been done to date to myself and to my colleague.

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, I believe that there has actually been a freedom-of-information request in that regard, and we're glad to provide you with the information.

We do not have the specific breakdown of the public affairs bureau here. We will get it back to the member.

Hon. G. Campbell: The bureau's task is to coordinate the communications services of the government through the ministries.

J. Kwan: Does that mean that the bureau does no work for the government caucus members or its private members?

J. Kwan: Do the ministries' communications shops do any work for private members — i.e., press releases, preparation for question period questions or the like?

Hon. G. Campbell: No, the government caucus has its own research staff, its own communications staff, and information is prepared by them.

J. Kwan: Just getting back to the bureau, do all the communications contracts go through the bureau — that is to say, contracts from the ministries' communications shops? Do they also go through the bureau, or do they go through the ministries individually?

Hon. G. Campbell: There are outstanding contracts that are currently being, I'm sure, administered by the ministries. New ones will be handled by the bureau.

Hon. G. Campbell: My answer was: not that I know of. My deputy has informed me that there was a great deal of overlap between Crown corporations and government communications in the past. We are currently reviewing that so that we can clearly separate Crown corporations from government activities. That is certainly the thrust of where we would like to go and what we expect to have happen.

J. Kwan: So after the transition period, then, all of the Crown corporations communications will be done through the bureau?

J. Kwan: Would they have to seek approval from the bureau before, let's say, a press release is issued?

Hon. G. Campbell: No, one of the changes from the previous administration that we believe is important is to separate Crown corporations from the government, and that's what we intend to do.

J. Kwan: What is the job of the research adviser in the public affairs bureau?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the research adviser's responsibility is to provide advice with regard to research.

J. Kwan: We understand that it is to do polling, so perhaps the Premier would like to double-check with his staff to ensure whether the role of the research adviser for the bureau is indeed polling oriented or not.

Hon. G. Campbell: I believe that under the previous administration, it was polling. That's why the title is there: research adviser. Polling is research. When you're doing a communication program, it is not unusual for polling or research to be part of that program. I can't tell you whether that position will remain as it is, defined as it is.

And candidly, I can't tell you if all 55 positions will be doing exactly what they were doing in the previous government. I would assume they won't be. That's why we're going through the transition. That's why the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau is coming back with a report on how you develop a shared communication service across government.

J. Kwan: Would the Premier provide us with the job descriptions associated with each of the different positions within the bureau?

Hon. G. Campbell: I would be glad to provide the members opposite and the Legislature with both the detailed organization chart and the job descriptions. I think it makes sense to do that following the review so that we're not giving you one set of organization charts and descriptions today, which may change by the middle of September. I'm glad to provide that information to all members of the Legislature.

J. MacPhail: Thanks very much for that information. I think we'll move to Crown agencies secretariat now. The Premier has noted for all of us that the agency has been moved into the Premier's office, and the budget has been moved into the Premier's office. There remains the structure of individual ministers being responsible for individual Crown corporations. I wonder if the Premier could expand on the relationship under his governance between the Crown agencies secretariat and the individual ministerial responsibility for a Crown corporation.

Hon. G. Campbell: I want to try to say this in order that I can, hopefully, answer some questions for you before you have to ask them. Ministers are still responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Crown and are accountable for that. The Crown agencies secretariat is now carrying out the mandate review for all the Crown corporations and will report back. The vast majority of the 790 agencies, boards and commissions still report directly through the ministries.

J. MacPhail: The Crown agencies secretariat has a deputy minister; maybe she's called the CEO. Does she report directly to the Premier, or does she report to one of the other deputy ministers?

Hon. G. Campbell: She reports through the deputy minister for corporate planning and restructuring.

J. MacPhail: How does the Crown agencies secretariat coordinate? Are there regular meetings amongst Chairs of Crown corporations? Are there regular meetings amongst CEOs? How does the coordinating element proceed?

Hon. G. Campbell: The CEO of the Crown agencies secretariat was appointed, I believe, around the end of June. At this point she has not had regular meetings with the board Chairs. Hopefully, that will be something that will happen in the future. The opportunity for us to provide policy advice and direction, I think, clearly rests with the Crown agencies secretariat reporting through my deputy minister. That secretariat will be working with Crown agencies to be sure that they understand the activities of government, the policy directions of government and, I think, will be a very effective tool of making sure taxpayers get the best benefit for every dollar they invest.

J. MacPhail: I note that the Premier is going to make substantial changes in the relationship between Crown corporations and municipal governments. Just a couple of examples that I think will require substantial coordination…. The Premier recently announced that Crown corporations will be subject to municipal taxes. There's another commitment the Premier is moving forward on, and that is that Crown corporations should be subject to local zoning and land use bylaws.

These are substantial initiatives for Crown corporations. I know that, for instance, B.C. Rail has railway tracks that run through numerous municipalities. I'm wondering if perhaps we can use B.C. Rail as an example of the payment of municipal taxes and the compliance with zoning bylaws.

Hon. G. Campbell: As the member opposite is aware, there are a number of concerns that have been raised by local jurisdictions with regard to Crown corporations in both the paying of taxes and the direction from government that they live within land use and zoning bylaws. I have sent out a letter with regard to land use and zoning bylaws. The Ministry of Finance is working now on its first complete budget, which will be delivered on February 19, 2002. We intend to work with local communities with regard to those issues.

I'm sure the member is aware there was a great deal of concern in a number of communities that were affected by B.C. Rail when the previous government passed Bill 55, which had a real dislocating impact on many local communities, local homeowners and small businesses. We intend to work in partnership with those local jurisdictions, and we intend to ensure that our Crown corporations are seen as positive additions to local economies and the provincial economy as well.

J. MacPhail: What will be the consultation? How does this take place? The direction is general. Well, no.

In fact, it says that the Crown corporations are supposed to work with the Crown agencies secretariat. February 19 is six months away, and I'm sure budget planning for Crown corporations is taking place now. Of course, some of the Crown corporations are commercial Crowns, so these two initiatives — one, paying municipal taxes and, two, complying with zoning bylaws — would have a particular impact on commercial Crowns but also on the other Crowns as well. What's the timeline for the Crown agencies secretariat pursuing this consultation and reaching conclusion?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the member knows because we've circulated it, the letter was sent out by my office and under my signature to the Crown corporations on August 7. The Crown agencies secretariat will be working with them on an ongoing basis to ensure that those Crown corporations are working within land use and local zoning bylaws. The taxation issues are issues that will be dealt with by the Ministry of Finance over the coming months as we move toward the budget on February 19.

J. MacPhail: Is the government guaranteeing…? Let me ask this question. I shouldn't assume anything. Do grants-in-lieu to municipalities from Crown corporations cease?

Hon. G. Campbell: What we have said is that Crown corporations will pay their full share of property taxes. That's what they will do. Grants-in-lieu were in lieu of property taxes. So as Crown corporations are paying their full property taxes, obviously part of that transition will be the elimination of grants-in-lieu. The reason the Finance ministry is doing this is that there are some significant issues that have to be dealt with in working with local governments. They will work with local governments, and they'll be reporting to us during the budget of February 19.

J. MacPhail: Does the Premier assume that the change from grants-in-lieu paid by Crown corporations to municipalities — the switch from that to the payment of property taxes by Crown corporations — will reduce the contribution from Crown corporations to municipalities in any case? If so, if there is a reduction in terms of the amount transferred from a Crown corp to a municipality as a result of the change in the system, will the government guarantee that the municipalities don't have to absorb the loss?

Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite was previously a Minister of Finance, in my recollection. I can't imagine municipalities encouraging the province to do something that would reduce their revenues. Indeed, what is important here is that the policy that we have enunciated be put in place, that it be done in an integrated manner as we move forward. I'm sure we will hear back from both the municipalities and the Ministry of Finance about how that policy will be in place and what its impacts will be. We're looking forward to that report coming forward in the future.

I don't assume anything. We have said clearly what our goals and objectives are. Municipalities, to date, have been very encouraging that we pursue those goals. They think it's fairer. I think it's fair for them to see the facts, for the Ministry of Finance to develop the facts, for us to come forward as we should in an orderly way with the presentation of the budget on February 19.

J. MacPhail: I hate to admit it, but it's because of my past experience that I asked that question specifically. There are all sorts of initiatives that governments take that have unintended consequences. That's why I'm asking the Premier whether there will be any assurance given to municipalities that they will not suffer a reduction in transfers of money from Crown corporations to the municipalities.

Hon. G. Campbell: The reason I am making no assumptions is exactly the point that the member made. The member says there are all sorts of unintended consequences. We've been clear about what our policy objectives are. Municipalities have been clear about what their policy objectives are. We will work with municipalities, and we will understand all of those consequences as best we can, and there will be a report on February 19.

J. MacPhail: I think municipalities would feel more comfortable if there were an assurance that as a result of this Liberal initiative, they're not going to lose money. I would urge the Premier to give that guarantee to municipalities as he undertakes this switch in policy.

The other matter that the Crown agencies secretariat is reviewing now is the commitment by the Premier that Crown corporations should be subject to local zoning and land use bylaws. Would the Premier give examples of where Crown corporations are not abiding by local zoning and land use bylaws? It's one of those questions, probably, you should never ask here, because I don't know the answer. I'm really seeking information here.

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't give you specific examples. I can give you examples of where local governments were not properly consulted and were not included. B.C. Ferries is a very good exemplar of that. Formerly, the member was responsible for those.

When I hear from municipalities, the Crown corporations are not working with them and don't hold their land use or their zoning bylaws in high regard. I think it's very important for a government to send out the message that as far as this government's concerned — and Crown corporations are servants of this government or of the public — local land use and zoning bylaws should be adhered to, regarded and worked with and within.

J. MacPhail: That's admirable. Perhaps the Premier could give examples of where B.C. Ferries didn't do this.

Hon. G. Campbell: Two that come to mind are the city of Nanaimo and Horseshoe Bay, West Vancouver.

J. MacPhail: Well, in fact, that's not the case. There was disagreement about Horseshoe Bay. There was disagreement about the whole initiative, but there were no violations. Perhaps, then, if the Premier's using Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal as an example of why this initiative is necessary, he could update us on the future of the Horseshoe Bay terminal expansion.

Hon. G. Campbell: The Minister of Transportation has had an opportunity to review that with the members opposite. The Horseshoe Bay terminal expansion project has now got a local liaison committee that's at work with it. The minister worked with the local community, and there have been a number of changes to the expansion to try and make sure that that project is more in keeping with the neighbourhood's desires.

Hon. G. Campbell: The majority of the contracts are going ahead. There have been some alterations, but the project is going ahead.

J. MacPhail: I recall that during the election, the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi made a commitment that it wouldn't proceed. Was there new information that the review gleaned in order to reverse that commitment?

Hon. G. Campbell: What we said was that we believed that the community of West Vancouver, the neighbourhood, should have been included. What we also said was that the contracts that had been entered into would not simply be thrown out the window. There were clearly constraints there. The Minister of Transportation met with the city council in West Vancouver and met with the neighbourhood groups. A consultant was brought in to try and make sure that we brought together the concerns of West Vancouver and the neighbourhood with B.C. Ferries. Some alterations were made, but the commitments that were made by this government prior to the election have been kept.

J. MacPhail: My understanding is that the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi said the project would not proceed. I don't think there was a qualification to it.

Let's continue on using the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal expansion as an example of the local zoning and bylaw directive received from the Premier. If the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal is an example of that, and there's disagreement on whether the project should proceed or not at the municipal level…. There's no violation of zoning or land use bylaws, and proper consultation has been done. Does the Premier's directive then mean that the municipal point of view would prevail?

Hon. G. Campbell: I want the member opposite to understand that we believe that we can work in partnership with municipalities. We intend to do that. You would not have a Crown corporation under this government refusing to meet with the local council, as happened with B.C. Ferries in West Vancouver. I think it is important for us to be clear that provincial objectives are there, and we will identify those provincial objectives. We know, working with local communities, they will allow us to move forward on that in a thoughtful and comprehensive way.

J. Kwan: To follow up on the line of questioning on this issue, just so that I'm completely clear, from the Premier's perspective.... He has written a letter, as we understand, to all Crown corporations directing them that they must address the issue of local zoning and land use planning bylaws and must meet the requirements set out by each of the municipalities. The Premier then used the example of the Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal as an issue where there was opposition from the local residents, the community. He used that as an example of the Crown corporation not abiding by the local zoning and land use bylaws.

Am I right in understanding, then, that the Premier's directive to the Crown corporations is that when there is disagreement with the community on a particular use of a land parcel, even though it does meet with the bylaw, but where there's disagreement with the community, then the Crown corporation is to cease and desist in its planning activities?

Hon. G. Campbell: I've had some experience with local communities, and I think that when Crown corporations are working in good faith to identify provincial objectives, local communities will work in good faith to make sure that we're able to carry them out.

J. Kwan: I, too, have had experience working with local communities, and from time to time there are simply just disagreements. I know that in my own community of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, as an example, there's a lot of disagreements with respect to addressing issues of harm reduction. There are community members who disagree with zoning usage, even though the site may well be zoned for a particular use. I understand that the member from Burnaby brought forward a petition opposing some suggestions of harm reduction initiatives in the downtown east side community.

So my question is this: where there is a disagreement from the community, in spite of the best efforts in providing information and so forth — even then there's disagreement — does this directive mean that they are to stop all activities in proceeding with the plan of action?

Hon. G. Campbell: My answer remains what my answer was before. I believe that local governments will work with the provincial government in meeting provincial objectives. I think the provincial government has to be willing to work within local land use and zoning bylaws.

J. Kwan: The Premier didn't answer my question. While people will work together — there is no doubt that they will — but as I say, where there is disagreement, what does this directive actually mean? Does it mean that you must abide by the land zoning bylaws of the local community, the municipality? And do consultations then, even if there's disagreement, proceed anyway? Or does it mean, where there is disagreement, you would stop proceeding with the planning?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, the member opposite is determined for this cooperative partnership process to fail; I'm determined for it to succeed.

J. Kwan: I know that it is the habit of the Premier to put words, perhaps, in my mouth, particularly in this instance, to infer that my goal is to encourage conflict within the community. That is absolutely not the case. The Premier has written a directive in a letter suggesting and directing that all Crown corporations must abide by local zoning bylaws. He used the example of the Nanaimo and Horseshoe Bay ferry terminals as how the violation of local zoning bylaws was practised by the previous government. He was the one who brought that up when, in fact, the ferry terminal zoning was not violated. There was community disagreement; there's no doubt about that. Having said that, he used that example to say, "where there's disagreement," as if the violations of bylaws had taken place, which is not the case.

I'm just trying to ascertain from the Premier: what exactly does his directive mean? Is it just more showcasing of public relations rather than the actuality of giving teeth to his direction?

J. MacPhail: Just to add to that, the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi actually did use his authority or his position to call the B.C. Ferry Corp and demand that the expansion work at Horseshoe Bay ferry terminal be stopped. It was on that basis that the Premier, I think, ordered a review. Or maybe it was the Minister of Transportation — sorry. Anyway, the inappropriate use by the MLA for West Vancouver–Garibaldi — this was after the government was elected — provoked the review. The review came to the conclusion that the ferry terminal expansion would proceed. I assume that the Premier took into account his commitment to make sure that all zoning and land use bylaws are complied with.

Maybe what I could do for the Premier is just assure him of a timely approach to estimates. I have a couple of other questions on Crown agency secretariats. We fully canvassed, of course, in other fora, B.C. Hydro. There's been no discussion amongst us about ICBC, so I'd like to talk about ICBC and BCBC. Then the core services review will consume a bit of time. Then there are just some legislative programs and government policy initiatives, one of which may include a discussion around the announcements that the Premier made about increased funding for aboriginal programs and also exploring a bit his cabinet meeting with the First Nations Summit.

Maybe the Premier could update us on B.C. Buildings Corporation — it's a huge corporation within the government entity — and government's plans for it.

Hon. G. Campbell: As the member knows, B.C. Buildings Corporation is the responsibility of the Management Services ministry. I'm sure she had a chance to review that in the Management Services estimates. The Chair of B.C. Buildings Corporation is Doug Allen. Like other Crown corporations, it will be subject to the core services review.

J. MacPhail: Actually, no. I apologize; I wasn't able to make the estimates of the Ministry of Management Services. I was in this chamber.

This morning I looked in the New Era document for a mention of B.C. Buildings Corporation. I couldn't find it, but it may have been just my lack of familiarity with the document.

Hon. G. Campbell: The B.C. Buildings Corporation, like other Crown corporations, will be subject to the core services review. That's the commitment we've made, and that's the commitment we're keeping.

J. MacPhail: Just so the Premier can prepare in terms of what we'd like to discuss on the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia…. Again, I know that the Premier will make note of this. I was the minister responsible, for a period of time, for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. So my questions flow from some of the discussions I had with various consumer groups and insurance agencies at the time. Where I'll go with that with the Premier is how one ensures a new competitive environment in the area of auto insurance and the role that ICBC would play in that new competitive environment. I think the quote from the Premier is that he'll open up auto insurance to competition. I think that's it.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.