2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 7037 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003

           The House met at 2:04 p.m.

           Prayers.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

           D. Jarvis: I'd like to introduce to the members of the House Adam Petersen, a young man who has moved into my riding in North Vancouver. He has just finished being a student at Capilano College. He has been studying for his CAB licence for an insurance broker. He's a good supporter of this government, so please make him welcome.

           J. MacPhail: Today I rise to introduce Glen Naylor to the House. Mr. Naylor made the trip down the Island today from Parksville to visit one of our interns who is his grandson. I asked the intern working with us — and I was hoping the answer would be yes — whether his grandfather was older than me, but he couldn't guarantee that he was. That was extremely unfortunate on the part of the intern for not saying the right answer. Anyway, Mr. Naylor should be extremely proud of his grandson, Hayden, who is doing a wonderful job. Would the House please make Mr. Naylor welcome.

           Hon. S. Bond: I would like to welcome to the House today someone who is providing leadership in the area of private post-secondary education in the province, and that's Daren Hancott. He's the Vancouver campus director of the University of Phoenix, and he has been meeting with ministry staff today. I would very much like to ask the House to please make him welcome.

           Hon. G. Plant: Today we are joined in the gallery and the precincts by two groups of enthusiastic students from Diefenbaker Elementary School in Richmond-Steveston. They are accompanied by their principal, Susan Johnsen; by teachers Mrs. Csontala, Mrs. Hindson and Mrs. Waterfall; and by a group of parents. Working among the students is a specially fortunate young man who gets to have his twelfth birthday announced on the floor of the Legislature, Michael Yap. I hope all members of the House will please welcome all these fine students and their parents and teachers.

           D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 11 students who are touring our Legislature today. Saira Kanwal, Laureen Naidu, Jason Chan, Michael Goitard, Al-Rahim Habib, Patricia Trinidad, Jana Ingelsman, Shalini Arya, Stacey Neves, Kylie Van Eaton and Raymond Soo, of grades 10 and 11, are visiting from Surrey. Joining them is their teacher, Mr. Jonathan Nielson.

           These 11 students were participants in the Rotary Club of Surrey "Adventure in Surrey" speech meet, an event that focuses on developing a greater awareness among young people of both the responsibility and the importance of Canadian citizenship. These grades 10 and 11 students were asked to speak on what there is to celebrate in Canada. Their responses were lively and represented a refreshing image of youthful pride in being Canadian.

           As an acknowledgment of their fine work, I invited these students on a trip to the B.C. Legislature to gain a greater understanding of how our provincial government functions. Would the House please make them very welcome.

           R. Hawes: Today in the precincts we have 40 grade 7 students from Hatzic Elementary School with their teacher, Ms. Heron, and five adults as chaperons. Could the House please make them welcome.

           Hon. S. Hawkins: Our Kelowna Rockets hockey team returned from Quebec City, from the Memorial Cup. They had a fabulous season, and I want to officially congratulate them here. They had what has been described as a Cinderella season. They were a very young team, and they won the WHL finals. I think I've already made that point to the members from….

           Interjections.

           Hon. S. Hawkins: Yes, okay. From Kamloops and from Cranbrook.

           I want to congratulate Marc Habscheid, who won the honour of Coach of the Year for the Canadian Hockey League, and Bruce Hamilton, who is the Executive of the Year — both from the Kelowna Rockets organization.

           Next year Kelowna is hosting the Memorial Cup, and I can tell you our Rockets will be back there to defend it. Congratulations to them, and I hope the House also congratulates them.

[1410]

           Hon. R. Thorpe: Today I had the privilege of listening to 42 students from Glenrosa Middle School play. Their band was here, and they played in front of the Legislature. It's been a lifelong dream of the band director, Eddie Atherton, to bring the group here to Victoria and play in front of the Legislature. I just wanted to say what a great event it was. Would the House please make them feel very welcome here in Victoria.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY
ASSET PROTECTION ACT, 2003

           J. MacPhail presented a bill intituled British Columbia Railway Asset Protection Act, 2003.

           J. MacPhail: I move the bill standing in my name on the order paper, entitled British Columbia Railway

[ Page 7038 ]

Asset Protection Act, 2003, be introduced and read a first time now.

           Motion approved.

           J. MacPhail: This bill amends the British Columbia Railway Act to ensure that neither the government nor the company may lease or sell any part of the lines and property of the company. B.C. Rail is turning a profit for British Columbians, and therefore there is no need to sell B.C. Rail, particularly since the sale of B.C. Rail will have severe impacts on B.C.'s communities and economy and could be devastating for northern communities.

           According to recently released internal B.C. Rail documents, over 70 percent of B.C. Rail's workforce — that's over a thousand people — will lose their jobs if CN takes over operations. B.C. Rail offices will be moved out of the province, resulting in the loss of family-supporting management and union jobs in communities like Prince George. The cost of transporting goods will increase by 500 percent, which will cripple the forest industry, an industry that's already reeling. Some of the rail lines may be abandoned, leaving the resource-dependent communities with no service.

           The sale of B.C. Rail does not make economic sense. Massive job losses coupled with increased costs of production for an industry will hurt this province. British Columbians are telling the opposition that profitable public assets like B.C. Rail should not be sold off to pay for this government's failed economic plans or its record-breaking deficits.

           I move that the bill be put on the order paper for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

           Bill M203 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.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
APPOINTMENT AND ADMINISTRATION ACT

           Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act.

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

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce the Administrative Tribunals Appointment and Administration Act. This bill flows from the administrative justice project, the first system-wide review of administrative tribunals in the history of British Columbia. The bill is the first in a series of legislative reforms that will ensure British Columbia has an administrative justice system that is accountable, relevant, affordable, citizen-focused, accessible and fair.

           The two principles that underlie this bill are independence and accountability, and in this bill we give effect to those principles by focusing on the appointment and the tenure of tribunal members and on the role of tribunal chairs in overseeing effective tribunal operations. This bill establishes the principle of merit as the basis for tribunal appointments and recognizes the role of tribunal chairs not only in the appointment of members but also in the overall management and operation of the tribunal itself. These measures will strengthen the independence of administrative tribunals, foster greater public confidence in their impartiality and enhance the public accountability to and through government.

           While the bill is intended to apply to all administrative tribunals, we recognize that one size does not fit all. Accordingly and where appropriate, the provisions of the act have been modified to meet the unique circumstances of individual tribunals. Under the bill, tribunal chairs and members will be given fixed-term appointments, replacing the current practice of at-pleasure appointments which create uncertainty of tenure. This change will strengthen tribunal independence.

           The bill recognizes the need to have highly experienced and capable tribunal members. To encourage the development and retention of expertise, the bill will remove the current impediments to reappointments in the same tribunal or cross-appointments to others. This will enhance the effectiveness of administrative tribunals and provide lasting benefits to all those who use their services.

[1415]

           The bill fosters public accountability by clearly articulating the leadership responsibilities of tribunal chairs, and this concept of accountability to and through government will help us realize our new-era commitments for responsible, accountable management of public resources and tax dollars.

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

           Bill 68 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

COMMERCIAL APPEALS COMMISSION
REPEAL ACT

           Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Commercial Appeals Commission Repeal Act.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 70 be read a first time now.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 70. This bill repeals the Commercial Appeals Commission

[ Page 7039 ]

Act, dissolves the commission and makes necessary consequential amendments to all statutes with reference to the Commercial Appeals Commission Act.

           This legislation follows recommendations made through the core services review process. That process concluded that the number of appeals made annually to the Commercial Appeals Commission was not sufficient to warrant its continued operation. The commission was mandated to hear appeals of administrative decisions made under the authority of the provincial statute that adopted the commission as a main avenue of appeal. The commission primarily heard appeals of licensing decisions associated with consumer protection or finance-related statutes. These are appeals of decisions related to the ability of an individual or company to do business within regulated sectors. These are not appeals related to disputes between consumers and suppliers.

           A number of the statutes amended by this bill replace the current appeal to the commission with the appeal to the courts. Other statutes are being amended to provide appeal to a new tribunal, the financial services tribunal, which will be the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Finance.

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

           Bill 70 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.

Statements
(Standing Order 25b)

KOREAN HERITAGE DAY

           L. Mayencourt: As many members of this House have noted, May is Asian Heritage Month here in British Columbia, and it's my pleasure to speak today on the issue of Korean heritage in our province.

           Immigration from Korea has grown significantly since the 1970s, but it's really the economic might of the Republic of Korea that has caused more and more Koreans to come to British Columbia to set down roots and engage in business here. In my riding, we have numerous Korean restaurants, Internet cafes and bars that are all around my community, serving the Korean community as well as the other people in the larger community.

           Additionally, we have an astonishing record on international students. We have around 30,000 Korean students that come to British Columbia every year to study English. They come here because it's a safe and vibrant and beautiful place, and because it's economical for them.

           I understand, from the 2001 census, that over 28,000 individuals named the Korean language as their mother tongue, and that's a very significant group of people. This increased population continues to put down roots, and they continue to share their rich culture and traditions with the rest of British Columbia.

           On Saturday we're all getting together to celebrate Korean Heritage Day at the Plaza of Nations in Vancouver. We're going to honour the fortieth anniversary of diplomatic relations between Korea and Canada. It will be a great day, full of festivities and dance and arts and culture. We'll also take a few moments to honour the many Korean Canadian veterans that have served in Canada's armed forces. It's always a favourite part of the day for me, when I go to Korean Heritage Day, to take a moment to honour those men and women who have contributed so much to Canada.

           Another special guest that will join us there is Ji-Won Park, a young lady who came to Canada last year. The Korean community has been so generous, as has the rest of British Columbia, in supporting her in all of her trials and tribulations.

           I just want to ask all members to join me in celebrating Korean Heritage Day on Sunday.

[1420]

FRASER VALLEY AIR QUALITY

           R. Hawes: This B.C. Liberal government is committed to ensuring that the people of British Columbia live in the healthiest environment possible. That means strenuous environmental protection, a strong water protection regime and clean air standards. To that end, we have introduced a number of bills that ensure our environment is protected in a sensible, sustainable and sensitive way. We've passed water protection legislation that ensures clean, safe water and have demonstrated our commitment to clean air through our actions.

           The Fraser Valley has one of the most challenged airsheds in British Columbia. It's a huge trap for pollution and airborne particulates, and only through stringent control by local, provincial and federal governments can this be mitigated. For years the citizens of the Fraser Valley have done their utmost to ensure that the quality of the air in the valley does not deteriorate further. In fact, their efforts and the expenditure of considerable amounts of capital have begun to evidence measurable improvement.

           Yet, in the Fraser Valley we continue to be challenged from the south by the SE2 plant in Sumas that has refused to take "no" for an answer. As I speak here today, the National Energy Board is hearing an application to allow SE2 to connect into the grid to enable their power production to flow through to the United States.

           Hundreds of dedicated and concerned citizens are lining up to speak against this proposal. We, too, as a provincial government — a Liberal provincial government — are standing alongside the local residents, with both our legal counsel and our MLAs, who will be making submissions to the hearing. As a resident of the Fraser Valley, I'm proud of our commitment to ensuring that our work to improve air quality in the valley airshed is not compromised by the SE2 project, which

[ Page 7040 ]

has no benefit at all to residents of the Fraser Valley, just as I am proud of our initiatives to protect the environment without strangling economic growth.

SMALL BUSINESS IN BURQUITLAM

           H. Bloy: I rise today to acknowledge small business, the backbone of the economy of British Columbia. The riding of Burquitlam is very fortunate to have hundreds of small entrepreneurial businesses. My riding of Burquitlam, like others in British Columbia, has a variety of cultural groups that excel in the business community. Though 99 percent of these individuals and businesses are never recognized formally for their contributions to British Columbia, their work does not go unnoticed. British Columbia thrives because we have such a rich, diverse population that all bring new thoughts and innovations into the very lifeblood of our province.

           I would like to particularly congratulate four exceptional entrepreneurs that happen to do business in the riding of Burquitlam. The first three names are winners of the B.C. New-Canadian Entrepreneur Awards. Bayne Vardy is the president and owner of B.C. Furnace Service Ltd. Mr. Vardy emigrated from London, England, and has built one of the largest companies within his industry.

           John Shen, another recipient that I'm proud to represent, is the founder of Palcan Fuel Cells. I've toured his facility. His technology and fuel cell development is on the cutting edge in British Columbia.

           Johnny Fong is a person I'd like to congratulate, as I've had the pleasure to meet him on several occasions. Mr. Fong was the recipient of the outstanding achievement award for his tireless work in establishing a number of successful businesses in British Columbia and for his selfless dedication to a multitude of charities in and around his community.

           The fourth person from my community, Kazuko Komatsu, is president and CEO of Pacific Western Breweries. Miss Komatsu has just been nominated for the International Business Person of the Year Award by the International Management Development Association. They will be holding their twelfth congress here in Vancouver this June. I look forward to having the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise visit my riding again to meet these four individuals and many other businesses in British Columbia.

[1425]

Oral Questions

MANAGEMENT OF COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

           J. MacPhail: With each passing day, outrage is growing at the Liberals' plan for selling off the Coquihalla Highway, and that outrage is being fed by a minister who refuses to give simple details about what the government expects in return for the sale. The Minister of Transportation told this House on Monday that she has a bottom line, but she won't say what it is. Would she like to take this opportunity to come clean and tell interior residents just how low she plans to go in this Coquihalla fire sale?

           Hon. J. Reid: There is great benefit to the people of the region and the province with the operating partnership of the Coquihalla. It's very important, as we go through this process and we work with the mayors and have a mayors' council, that there is a business case that will be made. If the province won't benefit in a proper way from this, in an adequate way from this, we wouldn't be doing the partnership, so there are benefits. If the benefits are going to accrue to the users of the highway and the taxpayers of B.C., then this will be a good and positive partnership to engage in.

           Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

           J. MacPhail: What the residents of the interior are asking for are some guarantees that they will benefit. Over and over again, despite repeated questions to this minister, she refuses to give any details to the interior residents whatsoever. "Trust me," she says.

           Well, interior residents don't want to pay with their highway to bail out the government with a short-term cash infusion. They paid for the highway through their tolls, and they have a right to know how much it's going to be sold for. The conventional wisdom that's out there circulating — if the minister doesn't deny — is that this government is willing to sell off the Coquihalla for as little as $500 million.

           In order to add $500 million to the bottom line, the government is going to lose approximately $55 million in revenue for the next 55 years. That's over $3 billion in today's dollars that they're going to lose. If that were a loan, the payback would be 500 percent. Given what an obvious ripoff this deal is to the taxpayers, will the minister listen to the people of the interior and kill this desperate cash grab of the Coquihalla?

           Hon. J. Reid: Thank you for the opportunity to be able to clarify the misinformation that the member of the opposition is clouding the issue with. The highway has not been paid for. On top of that, being able to give the benefit to the people…. Let me give an example of the benefits people can receive. For example, if there's a worker who lives in Merritt and travels just three times a month to Vancouver for work, over a year's period right now they'd be paying $720 a year in tolls. If we are able to do a partnership agreement, that person would see a reduction of $520 a year. I believe that is a significant benefit to the people of the area.

           Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

           J. MacPhail: I guess it's just the residents of the interior that just don't understand how valuable this representation is, just like when the member for Kamloops–North Thompson attended a public meeting and ac-

[ Page 7041 ]

cused the people in the room of being stupid. I guess that's the same thing this minister is doing.

           This minister reminds me of the person who quit their job so that they could get vacation pay to pay off their credit cards. That's exactly what she's doing. It just does not make any sense to sell a perfectly good highway to get out of a fiscal hole. It's no wonder the Minister of Forests doesn't understand, no wonder he doesn't understand it.

           Even if the private operator spends half of the revenue stream on maintenance and operating costs, it's still over a billion and a half of lost revenue in today's dollars to the people of B.C. that's going into someone else's pocket. British Columbians — not the Minister of Forests and not the Minister of Transportation, clearly, but British Columbians — know a ripoff when they see one, and this one can be seen coming from miles away.

[1430]

           Again to the minister: if she won't listen to the people of the interior and tell them what she expects to get for the highway, will she promise that if Liberal MLAs from the southern interior tell her that this is a dumb deal…? Will she then kill it?

           Hon. G. Collins: It's a little hard to sit here in this House after ten years of NDP and that member and have her give math lessons to this side of the House. First of all…

           Interjection.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           Hon. G. Collins: …the revenue stream from a partnership on the Coquihalla Highway is not required to balance the budget in 2004-05, despite the assertions of the members opposite.

           Interjection.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the answer.

           Hon. G. Collins: No revenue stream, no revenue source from a partnership on the Coquihalla is booked into the fiscal plan. I've said that repeatedly. The member either knows that and is misleading the public or doesn't pay attention, so I'll just clarify that for her here today.

           Interjection.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           Hon. G. Collins: Thirdly, if there is going to be the windfall, as the member prescribes, using her math, then it would seem to me that there would be a vast number of people willing to bid for that revenue stream.

           The reality is that we'll put out the partnership. We'll describe what the benefits need to be. We'll describe what the benefits need to be to the people who live there. We'll describe what the parameters are and the safety parameters are on the Coquihalla Highway. The bidder will have to respond to that and comply with that. Then there'll be a competition over what the value of that is. The thing is that the proceeds from that go to the people of British Columbia to be reinvested in infrastructure.

           Lastly, at the end of 55 years the people of British Columbia still own the Coquihalla Highway, and they get it in prime condition back into British Columbia. In the meantime they've been able to build additional infrastructure. It's a good deal for the people of the province.

PROMOTION OF TOURISM IN B.C.

           W. McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. The summer tourist season is approaching, and the Kootenays are in a great position to benefit. I understand the minister met with tourism ministers from across the country in Vancouver this past weekend to discuss tourism initiatives.

           Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise let people throughout the Kootenays and the rest of the province know what steps are being taken to promote this vital sector of British Columbia's economy?

           Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, our government has made extra funding commitments to tourism in British Columbia — $500,000 to regional tourism, which includes $75,000 for Tourism Rockies, and $750,000 in incremental funding to Tourism British Columbia to be used in nearby markets so that rubber traffic can come into British Columbia and help offset some of the losses from long-haul air traffic.

           On May 9 we met in Toronto, and the Canadian Tourism Commission committed a further $5.4 million to advertise into key cities in the United States. Two of those, which are going to benefit the Kootenays in bringing people into British Columbia, are Seattle and San Francisco. Then, this past weekend the tourism ministers from across Canada met in Vancouver. We have committed to developing a ministerial task force to have a national tourism strategy in place by September 15.

           On Monday I attended Rendez-vous Canada in Vancouver. It was the second-largest Rendez-vous Canada in the history of this country. Tourism Rockies and all of the tourism operators in British Columbia were front and centre, working hard to attract visitors to British Columbia.

           Our government is committed to working with tourism operators throughout British Columbia to grow that industry, to create employment and to create jobs throughout British Columbia.

[1435]

GOVERNMENT ACTION
ON MAD COW DISEASE

           P. Nettleton: To the Minister of Agriculture — again, regarding the effects of BSE, or mad cow disease, on British Columbia — I would like to reiterate my suggestion that the minister seriously consider that no

[ Page 7042 ]

animal feed enter or be produced in British Columbia that contains animal product — that is, protein slaughtered from cattle. I say let's not wait for the federal government to do this out of necessity, but rather let the B.C. government protect its own cattle industry now, through a complete ban on animal content in any and all animal feed.

           Could the minister then please tell the House what steps are being taken to assure and inform the public that British Columbia beef products are safe, if indeed that's the case, and can the minister also indicate how many other farms, ranchers or beef producers may be feeding cattle ruminant-based poultry feed in contravention of the law? Is the British Columbia government investigating this at the present time, or is the ministry leaving this issue entirely in the hands of federal inspectors?

           Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to start out by advising the House and the public that there continues to be no evidence of any compromise in the safety of our food supply. On the three farms that were identified in the feed investigation, none of the animals entered the food supply. I also was advised this morning that all of those ruminant animals will be removed by the CFIA, and they will be destroyed and tested for BSE — 62 cattle and 35 goats. The CFIA is continuing to interview customers of certain feed mills. I think it's important for farmers to recognize that they have to comply with the law in terms of the use of poultry feed.

           All of this is a federal matter. I was advised this morning by the federal minister that they are continuing their full investigation. There are no new farms under quarantine, but they continue to do so in a systematic manner. It's very important from the point of view of international trade that we do so in a scientific manner, and we support the CFIA on their efforts.

SALE OF CROWN LAND IN COMOX VALLEY

           J. Kwan: The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management is embroiled in an issue involving Crown land in his own riding, and it smells even worse than fish farms. Recently the Courtenay city council narrowly voted to annex a 40-acre piece of Crown land known as the Lannan forest. This was a required step towards the completion of one of the worst backroom deals that the Comox Valley has ever seen.

           For years the regional district of Comox-Strathcona has expressed its strongest interest in obtaining the Lannan forest for a park. This past November, the public learned for the first time that Land and Water British Columbia had secretly negotiated a deal to sell the land to Crown Isle Resort for a golf course and what many believe may turn into a subdivision.

           Can the minister explain why no one else was allowed to bid on the land and why the public can't even find out what the price is?

           Hon. S. Hagen: I don't want to pre-empt a press conference that's going to be held at 3 o'clock this afternoon by the city of Courtenay, telling the public of the Comox Valley that this is probably the best land deal that's ever happened in the Comox Valley. But I want to tell you that Land and Water British Columbia has done a very, very good job in making sure that the land that's coming in is going to be well used. They look at economic factors — how many jobs are going to be created — and this government is interested in new jobs. As you know, we had almost 80,000 new jobs in the province last year, and we've had 17,000 new jobs so far this year. We want some of those jobs in the Comox Valley.

           I'm very pleased to say and to advise the member opposite that she should pay attention to the press conference that's going to take place at 3 o'clock this afternoon, where the mayor and the city council unanimously will say that this is a good deal for the people of the Comox Valley.

           Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

           J. Kwan: This deal was brokered by real estate agent Art Meyers, who contributed $9,000 to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management's nomination campaign.

[1440]

           A condition of the Lannan forest deal was that the property had to be annexed by the city of Courtenay. City councillors said they were being blackmailed into the annex of Lannan in order to preserve other pieces of Crown land, which is to be announced later today. Well, will the minister intervene and say that this mess stinks and allow the public to be involved in making decisions about the Crown land we own?

           J. MacPhail: Were they blackmailed into having the press conferences too?

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           The term "blackmail" is unparliamentary, and I'd ask the member to withdraw it immediately.

           J. MacPhail: I withdraw.

           Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

           Hon. S. Hagen: As usual, the members opposite have false information and are giving out false information.

           The realtor in question was retained when Land and Water B.C. was called the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation in about the year 1994, when I believe those people were in power. The realtor in question received no commission on this sale. The realtor in question was

[ Page 7043 ]

being paid an hourly rate for advice. There is no commission paid on this sale to anyone.

           [End of question period.]

Motions on Notice

AMENDMENT TO MOTION ON
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS SCHEDULE

           Hon. G. Collins: I move Motion 101 standing in my name on the order paper.

[That the motion passed by the House on May 26, 2003, be amended to read as follows:

           J. MacPhail: I would ask the minister if he could please explain the necessity for this motion.

           Hon. G. Collins: It is an amendment of the earlier motion for time allocation, and it merely adds the words "3rd Reading" after the word "Committee" in various places on the motion to clarify that the bill needs to go through all stages in order to complete government business.

           Motion approved.

Motions without Notice

          Hon. G. Collins: By leave I move that Mr. Bhullar be added to the list of members composing the Select Standing Committee on Education and the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs for the present session.

           Leave granted.

APPOINTMENT OF TONY BHULLAR TO
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

           Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

           Hon. M. de Jong: Tabling reports, Mr. Speaker. I've got the 2002 annual report for the Forest Appeals Commission and the 2002 annual report for the Forest Practices Board.

Petitions

           J. MacPhail: I rise to table a petition signed by over 1,000 British Columbians who say they are opposed to extended care patients being treated as second-class citizens and ask the government to keep the Gorge Hospital open.

Orders of the Day

           Hon. G. Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill 61.

Committee of the Whole House

COMMUNITY SERVICES
LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 61; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

           Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

[1445]

           On section 4.

           Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 4.

[SECTION 4, by deleting the proposed section 4 (1) and (2) and substituting the following:Association of unions
4 (1) A trade union certified to represent the employees of an agency included in a bargaining unit established under section 3 must belong to a single association of unions composed of all trade unions representing employees in all bargaining units established under section 3.
(2) The trade unions affected by subsection (1) must agree, within 30 days of the date on which this section comes into force, to articles of association that
  (a) are consistent with this Act and the Code,
  (b) provide the association of unions with exclusive jurisdiction to bargain on behalf of the bargaining units for which the association of unions will be certified and to conclude a single collective
  agreement for each bargaining unit established under section 3,
  (c) provide the association of unions with the right and obligation to resolve differences among its members with respect to the administration of the

[ Page 7044 ]

  collective agreements referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection, including differences with respect to the right or obligation to a particular trade union within the association of unions,
  (d) include provisions with respect to ratification and other collective bargaining processes that reflect the relative membership size of trade union representation in the bargaining units within the
  association of unions, while ensuring that a member or group of members of a constituent trade union is not treated by the association of unions in bad faith or in a manner that is arbitrary or
  discriminatory,
  (e) provide for the future addition to the association of unions of any other trade unions that the Labour Relations Board may certify to represent employees of an agency that are within a bargaining
  unit, and
  (f) include any other provision that the Labour Relations Board determines may be necessary in order to ensure that the association of unions can function as a bargaining agent and administer a
  collective agreement on behalf of the employees within its jurisdiction.]

           Amendment approved.

           Section 4 as amended approved.

           Sections 5 to 10 inclusive approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 2:46 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

           Bill 61, Community Services Labour Relations Act, reported complete with amendment.

Third Reading of Bills

           Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the order passed today in this House, the question is now third reading of Bill 61.

           Bill 61, Community Services Labour Relations Act, read a third time and passed.

           Hon. G. Plant: I call committee stage debate on Bill 66.

Committee of the Whole House

 MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2003

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 66; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

           Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

           On section 11.

           D. MacKay: I rise today to speak to section 11 of Bill 66, which is before the House today, to express my opposition to the amendment being passed through this House.

           First of all, I'd like to make the House aware of the Election Act as it presently stands today. Section 30(b) is the section under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act that we're looking at repealing completely. Basically, section 11 under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act states that we're going to remove the disqualification of prisoners serving sentences of two or more years from voting in provincial elections.

           This issue of allowing prisoners who are serving time the right to vote in provincial elections has been with us for some time. Back in 1988 there was an amendment to the provincial Election Act wherein it was decided that a person is disqualified from voting at any election and shall not make an application to have his name inserted in a list of voters who, under subsection (b) says: "…has been convicted of treason or an indictable offence, unless he has secured a free and conditional pardon for these offences or has undergone the sentence imposed for the offence, but it does not apply if that person who had been convicted of the indictable offence has been released or is on probation…."

           The issue of allowing prisoners the right to vote was an issue in 1988, and the issue came up again in 1995, when the last amendment to the provincial Election Act stated, and qualifies, individuals who are disqualified from voting. It states today that, "Without limiting section 29 (f), the following individuals are not entitled to vote in an election," and subsection (b) states: "…an individual who was imprisoned in a penal institution serving a sentence of 2 years or more." That's the legislation we are proposing to amend today.

           Mr. Chair, I served for 28 years in the RCMP, and I know from experience that for an individual to be sentenced to a period of two years or more, they would have had to have committed a significant criminal offence with extenuating circumstances. So you might wonder what sort of crime and punishment would see a person sentenced for such long periods of time, and I'd like to give you just a couple of examples.

           There are many in the Criminal Code of Canada, but I'm going to give you only two examples of sentences where people can be imprisoned for a period of two years or more. One is murder — taking the life of another individual — or sexual assault. Those two sections in the Criminal Code carry a penalty section that can exceed two years or more. It can carry up to life imprisonment.

           As I mentioned in the House two days ago when I responded to the member for Vancouver-Kensington, people look to government to enact legislation to protect them. As elected officials we have an obligation to do that.

[ Page 7045 ]

From this point forward, after the enactment of a piece of legislation, we look to the police and to our court system to enforce sentences for those who break the law.

[1455]

           The Criminal Code of Canada deals with criminal issues such as murder and sexual assault, which are just two of the many offences that carry a sentencing provision of two years or more.

           I'd like to look for one moment at section 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The highlight there is the purposes and principles of sentencing. I'm going to read to you section 718 of the Criminal Code: "The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives." There are several there, but subsection (c) talks about: "…to separate offenders from society, where necessary."

           I think, in my understanding of the law today, that means sending them to jail, because you're separating them from society. It's interesting. When one starts looking at the Criminal Code stats in Canada and provincially, crime rates in British Columbia for the year 2000 were 11,250 Criminal Code offences per 100,000 population. That's in the province. Nationally, the average was 7,665 per 100,000 population. In 2001 there were 12,794 federal prisoners serving time in federal institutions across Canada. Today, in this province, there are 1,901 prisoners serving sentences of two years or more.

           The issue before us today in this House is prisoners who have been sentenced to a period of incarceration for a period of two or more years having the right to vote in a provincial election. Let me ask you: are votes important? Is a single vote important? I'm going to give you a couple of examples of just how important votes are in a democratic society, a society in which we all live in this country.

           The first thing I want to bring to the House's attention is the recent presidential elections that took place in the United States of America in the year 2000. That was the closest presidential race since 1867. After 93 votes had been counted in the United States, only 26,000 votes separated the two candidates, and I needn't remind this House that the United States has a population of somewhere around 350 million people.

           There are a couple of other examples I'd like to bring to your attention. In 1649, and that's going back a few years ago, a margin of one vote cost King Charles I of England his head. In 1800 one vote made Thomas Jefferson the third President of the United States. In 1845 one vote annexed the Republic of Texas to the United States. In 1941 the Selective Service Act, otherwise known as the draft, was passed by a margin of one vote just weeks prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor. All those were determined by one vote.

           I'll take you back into the United States again, down to Lost Springs, Wyoming. Leda Price is the mayor of that small community, and she was duly elected back on November 5, 2000. She voted for herself, drawing an X by her name on the official Converse County ballot. With a single ballot, with a single vote, she elected herself mayor for the fifteenth two-year term — unanimously. Nobody else bothered to vote, so she elected herself.

           Those are critical things to recall on the importance of a vote in a democratic society, so there should be no mistake: the right to vote is a privilege enjoyed in a free and democratic society. People have fought and died for that right we enjoy today.

           The Election Act of British Columbia is now before this chamber due to a proposed amendment wherein prisoners who have previously been denied the right — and rightfully so, in my view — would have the right to vote, should this amendment go through. I am of the strong belief that prisoners who are incarcerated for two or more years forfeit the rights and privileges they had. They leave those rights and privileges at the prison door after they've been sentenced to a period of incarceration, and after they've served their time, they pick those democratic rights up — the right to vote — when they leave that prison after they've served their debt to society.

[1500]

           I happen to be the grandfather of three beautiful grandchildren. My eldest is a ten-year-old granddaughter. She's ten years old, and that makes me think back to the terrible tragedy that happened recently in Toronto. I refer, of course, to the kidnapping and murder of ten-year-old Holly Jones. Can anybody in this chamber imagine the emotional suffering of the parents and grandparents of this young, innocent child who was taken from us?

           I also want you to stop and think for a moment and consider the tragedies surrounding sick people like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo, who preyed on young people. Think of the sick pedophiles who preyed and continue to prey on young children today. Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo are serving sentences of two years or more.

           When the individual who so tragically took the life of that young girl from Toronto is caught, he or she will be facing a jail term in excess of two years. So I ask the members of this chamber: do you want these types of people voting in a provincial election? It will happen if we allow this amendment to go through.

           Federal prisoners are moved around the country subject to risk and other criteria established by the penitentiary service. Can you imagine the person who killed that young child in Toronto winding up in a prison in British Columbia? With the passage of this amendment, we will allow that sick person the right to vote in our provincial elections, and that is a shame. That's a terrible shame to allow something like that to happen.

           I also want to stop for a moment and remind people about the families of victims of crimes — serious crimes like murder, where husbands, wives, daughters and sons were murdered and taken from those families. Those people who committed those crimes will be given the right to vote if this amendment goes through.

           I am offended to think that we are considering, through this amendment, giving the right to vote to those who have been removed from society because of their criminal behaviour. I find it repulsive to think

[ Page 7046 ]

that the likes of Clifford Olson and others who have committed terrible crimes will have a say in a free and democratic society through the right to vote. I am strongly opposed to this amendment, and I cannot support the passage of it through this House.

           With the greatest of respect, I understand the Supreme Court of Canada is forcing the province of British Columbia to conform to the law of the land. I understand that, but I also understand that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada — when that decision was made to force provinces to allow prisoners serving two years or more the right to vote — was a split decision. It was a 5-4 decision.

           I want to read just one of the comments during that decision back in 1993. This is coming from the judge. This really perplexes me, because he says here: "A majority of the nine judges on the Supreme Court rejected allowing prisoners the right to vote, saying it was unconstitutional." Part of the reason for that argument was that they said the right to vote was so important it could only be abridged for very specific reasons aimed at addressing a specific problem.

           Well, I'm sorry. I have to ask myself, when I look at my grandchildren and my children, and when I talk to families in my riding who have lost loved ones because of people who have committed a criminal act and taken loved ones from them: what more can the Supreme Court of Canada be looking for than those types of people who have taken lives? And we now want to give them the right to vote in this province.

[1505]

           I respect the Supreme Court of Canada for the right to pass legislation, and I'm a law-abiding citizen. I respect what the Supreme Court of Canada does. That doesn't say I necessarily agree with them. If there's bad law passed, we have a right — we have an obligation — to stand up and speak against anything of that nature. That's what I'm doing in this chamber today.

           As I said, I'm strongly opposed to this amendment and cannot support the passage of it through this House. I would urge other members — because I am standing up speaking on behalf of other members of this House — to stand up and be counted as being opposed to allowing this amendment to go through.

           Hon. G. Plant: Let me say a little bit about what section 11 of Bill 66 is doing. I'm grateful for the comments of the member opposite. I think what I need to do is put it in a bit of a different context.

           The Supreme Court of Canada recently made a decision in a case called Sauvé that arose out of a challenge to the federal Elections Act by a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment, I believe, in a federal penitentiary. The prisoner challenged the fact that the Canada Elections Act did not allow prisoners serving terms of imprisonment of two years or more the right to vote. The argument that Mr. Sauvé made to court was that the denial of the right to vote represented to him a violation of his rights as a citizen of Canada as guaranteed to him by section 3 of the Constitution Act, 1982 — that part of the Constitution Act called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

           Here's what section 3 says under the heading "Democratic Rights," and I'm quoting: "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein." Those words are rightly important. They lie at the heart of our conception of democracy. They represent a strong guarantee by the authors of our constitution of the right of all citizens to vote in elections.

           Mr. Sauvé challenged the federal statute on the basis that the federal statute violated his rights under section 3, and that challenge, as I recall, went through three different levels of judicial decision-making. It went to trial, it went to the Federal Court of Appeal, and it went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The question whether or not Mr. Sauvé's rights were violated by the provisions of the federal Elections Act was regarded by all who heard it as a difficult one. The case has an interesting history in that at both appeal levels, there were divided decisions. In the Supreme Court of Canada, the outcome of the case was a decision by a 5-4 majority.

           One of the things that I think is important to put on the table, if you will, in the discussion of the Charter is to remind members, who probably don't need reminding, about section 1 of the Charter. What section 1 says is that the Charter "…guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

           When you read section 3 and section 1 together, it's clear there is room for an argument on a case-by-case basis about whether a particular provision of a particular statute which may, on its face, violate one of the rights guaranteed in the Charter should nonetheless be allowed to stand because it is a reasonable limit prescribed by law and can be, in the language of section 1, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

[1510]

           We know a couple of things about the Charter. We've learned them over the 20 or so years since the Charter came into force. One is that reasonable people will disagree on a case-by-case basis from time to time about whether or not a particular situation constitutes a violation of Charter rights.

           The second thing we know is that in our system, that issue is to be decided ultimately by the courts. In particular, when we look at section 3 of the Charter, we know the issue of whether and in what respect the right to vote can be infringed upon is a decision fundamentally for courts.

           One of the reasons we know that is because some of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are made expressly subject to something that is usually called the notwithstanding clause, and that is a provision of the charter that allows Parliament or the Legislature of a province to expressly declare that a particular provision of a federal or provincial statute shall operate notwithstanding a provision of the Charter. The problem for the argument here before us is that the notwithstanding clause doesn't apply to section 3 of the Charter. We don't have the ability that we might

[ Page 7047 ]

have in this House to decide if, as legislators, we believe so strongly in a particular provision of our statutes that we wish to make them operate notwithstanding the provisions of the Charter as interpreted by the courts.

           In this case, in the case of section 3, it is the courts that make the law. They do so through judicial decisions — judicial decisions that are sometimes unanimous and judicial decisions that are sometimes divided. In this particular case, the Supreme Court of Canada that heard the appeal in this decision was divided, but it nonetheless made a decision. It made a decision by a majority of 5-to-4 that the provisions of the federal Elections Act, which restricted the right of prisoners serving long terms of imprisonment to vote, were unconstitutional.

           In this chamber sometimes votes are close — less so now than it was, perhaps, in the parliament or two before this one. Whether a vote is close or not close, it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. If the government can muster a majority in support of an initiative, that initiative will become law.

           It's also the case, at least on the law as it is today in Canada, that so long as there is a majority in the last court that hears a matter — in this case, the Supreme Court of Canada — the majority decides the outcome of the matter. The Supreme Court of Canada conclusively determined that the provisions of the Elections Act of Canada that restricted the right to vote for prisoners serving long terms of imprisonment were unconstitutional. The constitution actually makes it pretty clear that that's how this all operates.

           I believe the government of Canada has responded to that by making changes to the federal Elections Act. It's now up to us to decide what to do about the provincial Election Act. The Supreme Court of Canada case did not concern the provincial Election Act, but I think there is no basis for an argument that would distinguish the reasoning in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in its application to the federal act from its potential application to the provincial act. That is, all of the arguments and reasons that the majority at the Supreme Court of Canada used to strike down a provision of the federal Elections Act would apply with the same force and vigour to the provisions of the Election Act of British Columbia which are currently before us in section 11 of Bill 66.

[1515]

           That being the case, the government is of the view that section 30(b) of the Election Act is unconstitutional. We as legislators need to respond to that reality. I think there is really only one way to respond to that reality as government. It certainly is the only way to respond to this reality in this case, which is the one before us. Rather than wait for some citizen, presumably a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment of two years or longer, to come forward and challenge the provision of the Election Act that is before us now, we think the right course of action is to repeal this unconstitutional provision.

           We could argue at some length about whether or not this provision ought to be constitutional. We could argue at some length about whether prisoners serving short or long terms of imprisonment have or should have the right to vote. That is a reasonable debate. Some evidence of the reasonableness of the debate is that it took place even in the Supreme Court of Canada and resulted in a division on a pretty narrow majority on that very issue. But at the end of the day, we in this chamber really don't get to decide that question, because that question — according to the constitution of Canada, under which we are governed and are free — is decided by the courts, not in this chamber. The constitution — which exists to protect all of us, and which keeps us free — is here invoked and here relied upon to insist upon the repeal of this provision in the Election Act.

           I am certain that the debate will continue here — or if not here, elsewhere — about what the right thing to do is to deal with some of the important arguments that my colleague opposite has made about the challenge of wrapping our heads around the idea that people serving terms of imprisonment of two years or longer should be allowed to vote. I will follow that debate with interest and concern, because I think there are some really good questions being asked. But they're not questions that admit much debate in their application and outcome in this chamber this afternoon in my respectful view, because I think what we must do is that which the constitution requires of us. In this case, the constitution requires of us that we repeal this restriction in the Election Act.

           B. Penner: I've been following this debate with considerable interest and was impressed by the comments of both the Attorney General and the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine.

           I'd like to seek a bit of clarification around this issue, so I have a question for the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General confirm whether currently, under the provincial Election Act as written, persons serving jail terms in provincial prisons — that is, serving sentences of less than two years in our provincial jails — are permitted to vote?

           Hon. G. Plant: They are permitted to vote.

           B. Penner: Can the Attorney General give us any estimate of what it might cost taxpayers if the province were forced to defend a court action seeking a declaration that the current provision in the Election Act prohibiting those prisoners serving prison sentences in excess of two years from voting…? If such a court challenge were to be brought on the province, what would it cost taxpayers, assuming that such a case would be challenged not just at the initial trial level, but also appealed to the Court of Appeal of B.C. and perhaps the Supreme Court of Canada?

[1520]

           Hon. G. Plant: It's hard to predict the exact cost of a particular case, particularly when it's hypothetical. Constitutional challenges of this sort frequently cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and occasionally

[ Page 7048 ]

they go into the millions of dollars. In this particular case, it might even be the case that all parties would end up being funded by the public purse for one reason or another. That would increase the cost to taxpayers if there were to be a court challenge.

           B. Penner: I thank the Attorney General for that clarification.

           I must confess to feeling somewhat conflicted on this matter. It's a difficult issue. I think the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine argued quite succinctly and effectively that society traditionally wishes to impose certain social sanctions on people who offend society's rules — our laws. I think that's only proper.

           I consider myself to be something of a fan of Thomas Hobbes and his argument in favour of a social contract. That is, at nature, we are all free individuals to conduct ourselves as we see fit, but we have decided collectively as a society to surrender certain individual rights to act the way we may feel like towards our neighbours in order to build a better society — something in it for all of us. But a fundamental component of that social contract is that if you violate that social contract — i.e., you act out against a neighbour in a way that violates the social code or the social norms — there are consequences.

           That is why, in my view, it makes sense not only to incarcerate people for certain offences against our mutually agreed-upon rules but also to limit their participation in society for a period of time through other means. I think that was the original rationale behind provisions across Canada restricting prisoners' rights to vote in democratic elections. It was just part of that social sanction applied to people who have willingly gone out and violated our mutually agreed-upon standards of social conduct.

           I certainly sympathize with the comments and the sentiment by the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine. I'm sure all members of this House feel very strongly about the types of individuals he referred to — the types of people serving very lengthy sentences for very serious crimes. None of us, I think, wish to countenance any of those types of activities that led to those people serving lengthy prison sentences.

           But I have also listened carefully to what the Attorney General had to say, and I'm concerned about the potential cost to taxpayers in fighting what will almost certainly, based upon a Supreme Court of Canada judgment, be a losing cause. I consider myself a fighter as much as anybody. I don't often shy away from a big battle, especially when I think it's important. But I think in this case, taking a look at the evidence — and I am a lawyer and have had some experience arguing Charter of Rights cases at the trial level — it looks like a pretty safe bet that if this matter were to go to court, the province of British Columbia would lose given the precedent that's already been established by the Supreme Court of Canada.

           In the interest of saving taxpayers the cost for what will ultimately be a losing battle, I think I will bring myself — albeit reluctantly and somewhat grudgingly — to vote in favour of this section as proposed by the Attorney General in the bill before us. I know it's a bigger issue than we'll be debating here today.

           From time to time, we hear concerns and criticism about what's known as judge-made law. It's important to realize that judges are called upon to make those decisions by legislators who have drafted the law in the first place. But from time to time, it's certainly been my impression that especially our senior courts have at times interpreted our constitution, and particularly the Charter of Rights, in ways that perhaps the legislators never anticipated.

           Perhaps that's the risk those legislators made decades ago when they decided to effectively hand the courts what amounts to very hot potatoes on difficult issues that legislators themselves during negotiations in the early 1980s couldn't bring themselves to agree upon. So we collectively, as a society, handed some very difficult decisions over to the judges. From time to time, we're not very happy with those decisions. I must confess, although I'm a lawyer and I respect the role of the courts, that there are certainly times when I disagree very strongly with the decisions that some courts have made — not all the time and, in fact, not most of the time. I think most of the time the decisions, even from our Supreme Court of Canada, are bang on.

           But I'd have to confess that in this particular instance, I would have cast my vote with those four members of the Supreme Court of Canada — those in the minority — and I would have argued strenuously that people who have committed the most serious types of offences in Canada, in addition to losing the right to move freely in our society for a period of time, have also lost the right to participate democratically in our society for a period of time. Thank you for the opportunity.

[1525]

           V. Anderson: As I listen to all sides of this discussion, I find it fascinating and challenging for all of us to think clearly. One of the items that comes to my mind, though, is the recognition that there are those, of course, who have been sentenced for two years and longer who have performed horrendous crimes. There have also been those who have sentences of two years or longer who have not committed any criminal act, for they have been found to have been innocent at a later date.

           There is one other aspect of this that I think is important — that, regardless, those people who are incarcerated for two years or longer are still fathers or mothers. They still have influence upon their children. They are still the guides of their own families. They are husbands or wives. I don't think we should lose sight of the significance of them as persons, which this judgment does recognize — that they are persons within the society regardless of the horrendous mistakes that some of them have made.

           Those who have been judged to have made those mistakes have, in many significant cases, not made them but have simply been judged wrongly. I think we

[ Page 7049 ]

must take that into account, and so I would support the Attorney General in his presentation.

[1530]

           Section 11 approved on the following division:

           Sections 12 to 19 inclusive approved.

[1535]

           The Chair: Attorney General on the amendment on section 19.1.

           Hon. G. Plant: I move the amendment standing in my name to add section 19.1 to Bill 66.

[SECTION 19.1 by adding the following section:
Financial Institutions Act
19.1 Section 37 (1.1) (c) of the Financial Institutions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 141, is amended by striking out "the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations." and substituting "the administrator."]

           Amendment approved.

           Sections 20 to 41 inclusive approved.

           On section 42.

           Hon. G. Plant: I move an amendment standing in my name in the orders of the day to section 42.

[SECTION 42 (a), by deleting the proposed subsection (3) and substituting the following:
(3) A master is entitled to the remuneration, allowances and benefits established under section 13 (13) to (15) and (17) of the Provincial Court Act., and]

           Amendment approved.

           Section 42 as amended approved.

           On section 43.

           Hon. G. Plant: I move the amendment standing in my name to section 43.

[SECTION 43, in the proposed section 12
(a) by deleting "sections 16 to 24 of the Judicial Compensation Act" wherever it appears and substituting "sections 19 to 19.8 of the Provincial Court Act", and
(b) in the proposed subsection (2) (a) by deleting ' "January 1, 2003" ' and substituting ' "December 1, 2002" '.]

           Amendment approved.

           Section 43 as amended approved.

           Sections 44 to 46 inclusive approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. G. Plant: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 3:37 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

           Bill 66, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

           Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to order 101 passed in this House today, the question is now third reading of Bill 66.

           Bill 66, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, read a third time and passed.

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

[1540]

Committee of Supply

           The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

[ Page 7050 ]

           The committee met at 3:41 p.m.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

           On vote 8: office of the Premier, $52,270,000.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Just so the member opposite knows, I will be joined today by my deputy minister for corporate planning and restructuring, Brenda Eaton, and my deputy minister and cabinet secretary, Ken Dobell. I'm also joined by the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, the MLA for Richmond Centre. We look forward to answering any questions that the members may have.

           Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: I'll be joined in a moment by some staff members, and I'll introduce them when they come in.

           It's my pleasure to give a brief overview to the committee about the work of the intergovernmental relations secretariat, which is part of the office of the Premier. Our objectives in intergovernmental relations are to advance British Columbia's priorities with other Canadian and international governments and to manage protocol activities, official honours and awards, and conferences and events.

           B.C. is involved in planning Canada's annual Premiers' conference, the Western Premiers' Conference, the annual meeting of western Premiers and western U.S. Governors, and the annual meeting of PNWER, or the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. Leaders may meet for only a couple of days, but the preparation — involving exchanging documents, conference calls, travelling and face-to-face meetings to lay the groundwork for progress on issues of mutual concern — is considerable.

           A good illustration of intergovernmental cooperation is the Canada–British Columbia partnership announced in this year's Speech from the Throne. British Columbians want their provincial and federal governments to work together on their behalf. We agree, and we are creating a new partnership with the federal government in recognition of the importance of British Columbia to the current and future health of our nation's economy and society.

           Over the past year we've worked in partnership with the federal government on such things as the Olympic bid, with over $300 million committed subject to Vancouver winning the bid; the new Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre, where over $200 million has been committed; the new Gulf Islands national park; the softwood lumber dispute; forestry worker and community adjustment, where a significant portion of the $340 million announced by the federal government over the past year will be spent in British Columbia; the pine beetle infestation, where $40 million has been committed; highway and border infrastructure initiatives, where over $225 million has been committed; and just last week a joint federal-provincial contribution of $84.5 million towards 35 green infrastructure projects, with a value of nearly $127 million, under the $800 million Canada–British Columbia infrastructure program.

           We intend to continue to work in partnership with the federal government on these and other initiatives for the benefit of British Columbians and all Canadians. We are taking a constructive approach to federal-provincial relations. Cooperation with the federal government is key to meeting the broad range of provincial priorities from resolution of the softwood lumber dispute and offshore oil and gas development to urban rapid transit, high-tech cluster development, and improved fisheries management.

           We are identifying areas where B.C. is not receiving its fair share and working with federal ministers and B.C. ministries to achieve a more equitable distribution of federal government contract expenditures.

[1545]

           Major areas where B.C. has traditionally fared worse than other provinces include procurement spending, spending on cultural industries and spending on highway infrastructure. We're concerned that federal economic development organizations give more favourable treatment to northern Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. We're considering whether Western Economic Diversification, dealing with B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, is enough to help our province grow out of our have-not status.

           Getting people together to hear other views on the issues we all deal with is also an important part of the intergovernmental relations secretariat in British Columbia. Our annual provincial congress is a unique and effective way for B.C. leaders of every political stripe to share perspectives on issues that are of common interest to all British Columbians so that we can work together for the benefit of all.

           The congress is part of our commitment to enhance B.C.'s working relationship with municipal, aboriginal, federal and other provincial representatives. Logistical support for the provincial congress is provided by the protocol and events branch of intergovernmental relations. Working with other provincial and territorial governments is also critical to our success. We're ensuring that British Columbia is a proactive national leader, a full and equal partner in the Canadian Confederation and a pivotal player in its future development.

           We worked very hard with the federal government and the other provinces to secure more health care funding for patients in British Columbia at the February first ministers meeting. We must ensure that British Columbia has the means to provide patients with the care they need. The new first ministers' arrangement on health was certainly an important step in that direction.

           On the international scene, British Columbia must play a strong role in international relations, particularly with the United States of America, with an approach that emphasizes economic, education, cultural and other links, while promoting the government's strategic priorities. While the Minister of Forests is leading British Columbia's campaign to resolve the softwood lumber dispute, intergovernmental relations provides support.

 [ Page 7051 ]

           Through British Columbia's membership in PNWER, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, we have been exchanging information with American legislators on the softwood lumber dispute as well as getting support for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympic bid. British Columbia's involvement in the Canadian-American Border Trade Alliance has led to significant improvements in security and efficiency at the Canada–United States border.

           Our international relations also focus on the Asia Pacific region, where we are the leader in Canadian trade, education and cultural relations. About 22 percent of British Columbia's total trade is with the Asia Pacific region, and we wish to take advantage of the opportunities offered through events like China's accession to the World Trade Organization. We continue to pursue development of British Columbia's markets and other relationships in the region.

           My role as Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations includes building relationships with the international representatives of the British Columbia Consular Corps with visiting representatives from other countries. The Consular Corps is vital to British Columbia's international interests. I'm hosting meetings between senior B.C. representatives and the 76 members of the corps to keep them up to date on our policies and show them the best face of our province. Apart from the Consular Corps as a whole, I consistently meet with individual consular and trade officials from around the world to build relationships.

           In conclusion, we live in a time of a rapidly changing domestic and international scene. IGR plays a vital role in providing strategic advice to the Premier and other ministers. I want to extend my thanks to the staff of the intergovernmental relations secretariat and to the staff of other ministries who have worked with us. Success in intergovernmental relations is about relationship-building and cooperation. Our success involves the efforts of many dedicated people who are continuing to build relationships with their colleagues in other provincial governments, in the federal government, in the United States and in other countries.

           I would like to now introduce the staff joining us here this afternoon. The first on my left is Pierrette Maranda, who is acting deputy minister and senior adviser, federal-provincial relations. On my right is Garry Curtis, the senior adviser, strategic services, and on his right is Keith Ogilvie, senior adviser, international relations.

           J. MacPhail: I'd like to read into the record a letter sent to the Premier on May 21 of this year. It's from Harry Nyce, chair of the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine.

[1550]

           "Dear Premier,

"Re Skeena Cellulose Inc., a public inquiry:

           "The prolonged closure of the Skeena Cellulose pulp mill and sawmills is having a devastating effect on northwestern British Columbia. The provincial government sold the company to NWBC Timber and Pulp for just $6 million, plus a further $2 million offered for unsecured creditors. Yet the public's expectations, if not the obligations on the purchaser in the sales contract, are far from fulfilled. In the meantime, some logging proceeded on the timber tenures, supported by log export permits, but high unemployment persists, and property taxes owed to northwest communities remain unpaid.
            "The regional district is not suggesting some impropriety has occurred with the sale of Skeena Cellulose. However, the British Columbia public, and especially northwest residents, deserve a comprehensive evaluation of what has become a major economic and social catastrophe. We call upon the provincial government to clear the air with a public inquiry into the sale of Skeena Cellulose and its subsidiaries. The regional board recommends appointment of a special commissioner with the powers of subpoena to investigate the sale agreement and identify the reasons why little progress has been made to restart company operations.
           "The provincial government has a responsibility to protect the interests of the British Columbia public, yet sale of the assets of Skeena Cellulose has returned little for British Columbia. An inquiry is needed to determine why.
           "Yours truly,
           "Harry Nyce, chair of the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine."

           What is the Premier's reply?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Obviously, Skeena Cellulose was a grave challenge for all of us in government as we looked at how we could put that enterprise, as well as those communities, on a sound financial footing. We were challenged not just by the changing jurisprudence around the sale and the acquisition. We're also challenged by the social problems that have been created in the northwest through almost a decade of, frankly, government misappropriation — programs that didn't work, didn't respond to the needs of communities and didn't recognize the challenges that the marketplace was presenting.

           I have not read the letter. I'm pleased to hear the letter. My response would be, as I would do in a case like this, to deal with the Minister of Forests and talk with him. I see no particular benefit in a public inquiry at this time. I think the important thing that we're trying to do is create some stability in the northwest to create an opportunity for economic growth in the northwest based on forestry, based on mining and based on opportunities that are created in the energy industry and the transportation industry. The great port of Prince Rupert…. They're all part of the components that we will build a stronger and more vital enterprise and economy in the northwestern part of province.

           I appreciate the comments from the regional district. I'm always glad to hear from local representatives. But I don't believe that we would move any further forward than we have and we are now — any more expeditiously — by having a public inquiry.

           J. MacPhail: Perhaps the Premier could outline how 2003 is better than 1998, let's say, for that community economically.

           Hon. G. Campbell: I think one of the advantages of 2003 is that at least the northwestern part of the prov-

[ Page 7052 ]

ince knows that we're paying attention to them. They certainly understand that we recognize the transportation challenges that they faced. We have opportunities in tourism, opportunities in mining.

           There is clearly a major challenge that we face as a result of Skeena Cellulose. I think that challenge was mishandled by the previous government. We could obviously have a debate about that, and I would recommend that the member opposite do that with the Minister of Forests.

           There's also a significant change in the environment with regard to first nations. This government has said to first nations that we welcome them into the economy of British Columbia. We look at them as partners as we move forward to build an environment of prosperity, and that prosperity will be for the northwestern part of our province as well as for the rest of our province. The expansion of mineral opportunities, of mining opportunities throughout the northwest is a huge opportunity for people in those communities. The potential for tourism development is an enormous opportunity for those communities.

           I believe that when you look at what small businesses are telling us throughout that part of the province, they see that the government is on the right track. They're encouraging us to move more quickly. We are trying to do that as we bring together not just regional districts but the federal government, the government of Alberta, the government of British Columbia and the private sector to try to make sure we meet all the opportunities and open all the opportunities to the people and the communities of the northwest.

[1555]

           J. MacPhail: It's interesting. The Premier says the change to 2003 from 1998 is that they're paying attention to that corner. I just read a letter where the regional district chair is asking for a public inquiry. The Premier hasn't even seen the letter yet, and he's rejecting a public inquiry. How's that paying attention to them? I'd like to know.

           Perhaps the Premier could say what effect the continued closure of Skeena Cellulose, after this government selling it for six million bucks, has had on unemployment. What are the unemployment changes from 1998 to 2003 — or let's just say from 2001 to 2003? What effect has the Skeena Cellulose sale by this government had on the unemployment rate in the area?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Unemployment is clearly up in the area. I'm surprised the member has to ask that question.

           The challenges that we faced in terms of the Skeena Cellulose sale…. We know those challenges; they're clear. There was a long gap between when the acquisition was made and when the union finally came to the table and said they were going to be part of the solution.

           As the member opposite should know, there were court decisions made that required the government to move forward with regard to this in a different manner than had traditionally been the case. We have done that.

           I think the real issue here, in terms of the northwest, is that the vision for the northwest is one that will reinforce the economies and the assets of the northwest, whereas the previous government, Mr. Chair, as you know, decided the…. The Tatshenshini decision had an enormous impact on the northwest. We know that the Skeena Cellulose decision, and the way the previous government managed it…. I had people from the northwest today saying that that cost them thousands of jobs; it cost taxpayers over $400 million. Clearly, that is a major and difficult issue for us to deal with as a government, when we look at the social infrastructure of those communities.

           But I can tell you, Mr. Chair, the northwest of this province has great potential and a bright future. It's a future that has been generated by MLAs who have focused their attention on moving us forward in a comprehensive manner. It's a future that says we can open up that part of the province with opportunities, with improved transportation, with improved relationships with first nations, with improved mining activities, with improved opportunities in the energy field and with improved opportunities in forestry.

           Most of the contractors there will tell you and most of the people there will tell you that it has been very, very difficult over the last two, three, four and five years. We're trying to turn that around. It does take time. I'm the first to admit that, but I think the positive contributions from the people in the northwest are something that we should celebrate. We should congratulate them on their perseverance. We know that in the long term, the northwest of this province and indeed the entire province of British Columbia will benefit.

           J. MacPhail: Well, actually, the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine is looking for specifics, not rhetoric. The unemployment rate has almost doubled in the regional district from '01 to '03. Can the Premier tell us what has happened to the assessed value of residential housing in the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine?

           Hon. G. Campbell: No. I'm really not in a position to do that. I'm sure the member can get that from the B.C. Assessment Authority.

           J. MacPhail: The Premier stands up and says how great things are going for the area of Kitimat-Stikine, and he's getting a thumbs-up from his own member. Well, he should know this, because he's claiming that things are going to get better. The assessed value of housing in that regional district has plummeted so that the total assessed value is less than 50 percent of what it was last decade — less than 50 percent.

           Why is that important? It's important because people don't have jobs. The unemployment rate has skyrocketed; they don't have jobs. The pulp mill isn't about to open, and they've got to move out of town. But they

[ Page 7053 ]

have to sell their houses first, and they can't sell their houses. That's why it's important.

           Perhaps the Premier, then, could say what specific good news this regional district has to look forward to in the next six months. What actual investment is being made in the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine?

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me just go back for the member opposite, because the member tends to sort of forget about what her government did to this part of the province.

           The forestry policies of the previous government were raised time and time and time again by citizens of the northwestern part of British Columbia as being detrimental to their economic future, as being detrimental to their social future. We, unfortunately, inherited a forest industry which was in decline. It was a forest industry which was driving investment out. It was a forest industry that was watching as literally dozens of mills closed under the previous government's auspices.

[1600]

           Our goal is to restore a sense of confidence and certainty in the region. There will be literally hundreds and thousands — up to millions — of dollars of transportation investments, which will be taking place in the northwestern part of this province in the next six months. Those projects have been initiated. They will be moving forward.

           There also is work that is going on today, as the member opposite knows, with regard to improving our forest industry in this province. That's taking place every single day in British Columbia as we move ourselves forward from the decade of decline that we saw with the previous government.

           I am the last to suggest that all of the problems that were built up over ten years have now been solved. They have not. But we have started, I think, the process of creating a framework of economic certainty — a framework of economic opportunity in mining, in energy, in forestry, in tourism, in retailing, in technology. All of those things are applicable to the northwestern part of our province.

           The economic opportunity that is created by the great port of Prince Rupert is one that has been there for years. Through the decade of the 1990s I can recall where, for some reason, the previous government didn't seem to recognize the opportunities that Prince Rupert did present. This government has embraced that. We are looking for investments in containerization; we have put dollars into building that study and that business case. We're looking at investing millions of dollars in a new cruise ship facility for the port of Prince Rupert.

           All of that builds throughout the northwest, as you go across Highway 16 from Prince Rupert to Terrace, to Kitimat; as you carry on to Smithers and down to Burns Lake and right through to Vanderhoof and Prince George. People will then make their choices about whether they want to go down the Rocky Mountain Trench or Highway 97.

           All of these opportunities, as much as we would like there to be an instant solution to problems that took a decade to build…. We're going to continue to work relentlessly both with the MLAs and the communities in the northwestern part of this province to identify opportunity, to create a condition of certainty and to assure that in the northwestern part of British Columbia the economic future — the future in terms of jobs in the resource industries, in public services, including education services and health care services — is there for people in that great region of the province.

           [G. Trumper in the chair.]

           J. MacPhail: Well, that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee in the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine. Not only has unemployment almost doubled, but the assessed value of housing has fallen by 100 percent directly as a result of this government's actions for selling off Skeena Cellulose without any job commitments. The direct effect of this government's actions on the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine is to almost double unemployment and have assessed value of housing plummet to half its value. Bankruptcies have skyrocketed. Oh, and here's the last statistic of what this government's effects from selling Skeena Cellulose have had on that regional district: population is plummeting. People are leaving the area. It has plummeted by thousands in that regional district directly as a result of this government's fire sale of Skeena Cellulose with not one requirement for the new owner to invest in the community.

           That's why the regional district is asking for a public inquiry. That's been rejected by the Premier. Well, if he's not going to do the public inquiry, perhaps he could explain then what economic targets his government has set to actually reverse those trends — the time line for them.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Our goal is to move the economies of the northwestern part of this province and the communities in the northwestern part of this province forward as quickly as possible. We do not pretend, as the previous government did, that we can buy our way into this with the taxpayers' dollars. We cannot; we don't believe that. We believe we have to create an environment where investors want to come into the northwestern part of province. As we do that, it's important for us and for the member opposite to recognize the exceptional assets they have in that part of the province.

[1605]

           First of all, the fibre basket we know in the northwestern part of the province is what's known as a decadent fibre basket. Unfortunately, the previous government wasn't capable, evidently, of recognizing that and having it reflected in their forest policy. People lost jobs. We know that. We know that Skeena Cellulose itself cost our taxpayers in British Columbia over $400 million.

           Those are challenges that we inherited and that we accept the responsibility for turning around. We will

[ Page 7054 ]

do that. We will do it with forest policy that encourages private sector investment, that encourages contractors, that encourages people in the salvage business. We'll do it with policy that will make sure that the transportation infrastructure is there for the northwest, as they have identified for more than a decade.

           We will do it by assuring that we open up our province to opportunities in mining and exploration which, certainly, people in Smithers, Terrace, Kitimat, Prince Rupert and Stewart all saw as their opportunity in the past, which was taken away from them by the previous government and its attitude.

           We will do it by encouraging tourism, as I've said before. We're looking at the opportunity for improving not just Highway 16 but other roads that are critical to the economic infrastructure of the northwest. In fact, we will have completed a road we had to undertake with the Nisga'a Lisims government, which the previous government announced but didn't fund.

           Those are all steps to try and improve the social and economic infrastructure for the northwestern part of the province. They are critical to building a long-term future. The investments that we've made in the educational and health care infrastructure are critical to creating stability in communities.

           We recognize that throughout the rural part of British Columbia there has been a continued reduction in the population base. For us to be able to respond positively to that, we have to open up our province to opportunity again in our resource industries. We have to open up our land base in the province in the northwest and in other parts of this province. We intend to do that — working with communities, working with the various regions of the province so every region has the opportunity to pursue a path to prosperity.

           J. MacPhail: I guess if the Premier wants to use this time to spew hollow and empty rhetoric — fair enough. I'm asking very specific questions, and he's looking to assign blame everywhere else except by taking responsibility for himself. Unfortunately, that ain't gonna work for the people who are listening.

           Just the same way that he just rejected immediately out of hand a public inquiry into Skeena Cellulose, the people whose circumstances have changed dramatically and negatively in the northwest will not be comforted at all by his hollow rhetoric.

           Then let me ask this. The Premier says the forest policy changes that his government is bringing in…. I'm amazed that he can understand them, but I'm pleased that he can understand them. How is it that the forest policy changes that are now going to make the whole province subject to the same rules that now apply in the northwest…? How is that going to help?

           This government has said that licensees can now come in, take our publicly owned timber and not be obliged to create one job anywhere. It's all going to be left up to the goodwill of the licensees. That's exactly what this government did when it sold the tenure and the mill of Skeena Cellulose to NWBC Timber and Pulp. It said: "Don't worry. You don't have to create any jobs. The link is gone. Here's the tenure, and oh, by the way, you can export 35 percent of the annual allowable cut."

           In fact, they are exporting 35 percent. They're exporting every single log they've cut down. They're not using one single stick of wood, whether it be three centimetres or a thousand centimetres in diameter. They're not using one stick of wood locally. It's all being exported. Tell me how the new forest policy reforms that will replicate this potential all across the province are good news?

[1610]

           Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's very important…. I understand that the member opposite doesn't agree with this, and her government obviously didn't agree with it. It is critical to the long-term future of the entire province's economy that we have a competitive forest industry. It has to be internationally competitive. We can't think that our forest industry can deal just within the borders of British Columbia. We are a small, open economy, and we are effectively price-takers.

           If we are not competitive, unfortunately we see what took place through the decade of the 1990s with the previous government. We accept our responsibility to change that. We were elected to change it, and we said we would do that. We also believe it's important for the benefits of that public resource to be maximized for the public. Those are important initiatives that have been undertaken with the forest policy review that we've done.

           We know that prior to the previous election, there was a significant — what they called — B.C. discount from investors. I guess I understand that there are differences of opinion on how we can move forward to regenerate and revitalize the forest industry back to a position of stability and competitiveness where resource communities can take full advantage of the opportunities that are presented to them. I understand there are differences of opinion with regard to that. But, clearly, for us to be successful in the northwestern part of the province or any part of this province with regard to forestry, we are going to have to be competitive. We are going to have to encourage investment. We are going to have to try and find a long-term and durable solution to the softwood lumber challenges that we have faced in this province year in and year out for more than a decade, probably almost two decades now. All of those things, we believe, will take place as a result of the forest policy changes that we have initiated.

           I know the member opposite had a chance to review these in some detail both at the legislative stage and through estimates with the Minister of Forests, and that debate can carry on. I believe it's clear that we need and we require private sector investment. The member opposite believes we can socially engineer our way to success, but what we saw when that kind of policy was put in place was failure. What we saw were thousands and thousands of people losing their jobs. We have to find a way that we can turn that around, encourage

[ Page 7055 ]

private sector investment, encourage renewed productivity in the industry, encourage the industry to move forward so it can meet the needs of its customers in a timely way, and assure that we in the province of British Columbia have the most competitive industry that we can possibly have. That's how we'll secure long-term work and long-term economic stability for the citizens we represent.

           J. MacPhail: It's interesting that the Premier says I can have that debate with the Minister of Forests. Sorry, this government brought in closure. I was a quarter of the way through debating exactly these issues yesterday, issues that are so crucially important around forestry, and the government brought in closure. Sorry, Madam Chair to the Premier, there isn't any ability to discuss these issues, because this government doesn't want to discuss these issues. They want to have a secret government without any debate, and that's exactly what happened yesterday. I was on section 4 of a bill that had dozens and dozens of sections dealing with exactly these monumental changes in forest policy, and I was cut off — shut down.

           The Minister of Forests couldn't answer me with the changes that occurred in mill openings or closures since April 1 of 2002. The Premier has just suggested that things are better in the forest sector now. So could he tell me how many crew hours of closing there have been in mills since April 1 of 2002? That means permanent shutdowns, definite shutdowns and indefinite shutdowns.

           Hon. G. Campbell: No, I don't have that information.

           J. MacPhail: No. That's right. This government, according to the Minister of Forests, doesn't keep track of that information anymore. How would they possibly know how well the rural communities are doing? How would they possibly know?

[1615]

           I'll tell you what our research shows. The number of crew hours in sawmills and pulp mills has plummeted since April 1, 2002, and that's not surprising. The softwood lumber dispute remains unresolved. The industry itself has been thrown into confusion by this government's continuing attempt to change forest policy to appease the Americans and get a deal with softwood lumber. Companies have no idea what exactly those changes are going to be in the forest sector.

           What we do know for sure is that this government is going to sell a public asset to the highest bidder. We learned that yesterday. The licensee with the highest bid, regardless of what they can offer the community, will get the licence. There will be no requirement to create one job or process that timber in the area at all — not one requirement.

           I'm wondering what studies the government has done to see what impact that will have on the heartlands.

           Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, I want to talk about the parliamentary calendar. I certainly recognize that the member opposite has had a very difficult time through this session because she has on many occasions felt alone. I also know how government worked previously. What we've tried to do is make sure that members know when the government will be sitting and when it won't be sitting. The members opposite agreed to the parliamentary schedule. We laid that out, and we did it purposefully so that people could actually plan their lives.

           I can recall the previous government, when they were caring so much about the families of members, deciding to call a session of the Legislature two days before a spring break. I can recall the previous government dumping legislation on the order paper and deciding that the clever way for us to deal with the legislation was to push opposition into the small hours of the morning. That is not the way to actually operate a House.

           I understand that it's difficult to organize schedules, and I recognize the challenges the opposition may have felt they had. However, having said that, there has been ample opportunity for the opposition to review bills, had they decided to do that. There has been ample opportunity for them to review estimates with all the ministries, had they decided to do that. That is their choice.

           I can tell the member opposite that she's welcome to communicate with the Minister of Forests, and he will answer her questions as fully as he can. I can also tell the member opposite that from 1998 to 2003, 26 mills closed in this province. For the member to suggest that the policies that are being put in place in British Columbia are in some way appeasing Americans is simply for the member to stare the facts in the face and close her eyes. The fact of the matter is that we are not doing any such thing. We're creating an environment in British Columbia where our forest workers have the opportunity to have some security in their long-term future.

           It's all very well to sit there and pretend that the policies of the past were working. They were failing. They failed 15,000 forest families — 15,000 people in the forest industry — in the last five years. That's why the changes are required. You can't simply sit there and stamp your feet and say: "Why doesn't the world do what we want it to do?" We have to respond in a way that's thoughtful. We have done that. We have to respond in a way that ensures the public maximizes the benefit of that resource. We've done that. We have to respond in a way that ensures forest workers can have a long-term future in their industry. We are doing that. We have to encourage young people to make sure they can look at forestry as a potential career choice, as a potential profession for the future. We are doing that.

           We still have one of the most exceptional resources in the world here in forestry. It's a natural resource. It's what people did to the resource in the past that has led to the requirement for us to make changes today. That's why we're making the changes. That will work and have benefits not just for folks in the northwest of the province but also for folks in the Peace, folks in the

[ Page 7056 ]

Kootenays, folks in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Throughout the province there will be benefits that will accrue from this, because we will be encouraging investment in this province for a change, we will be recognizing the strength and the commitment of our forest workers, and we'll be building the long-term, sustainable development of a critical industry to our province and resource communities in every region of this province.

[1620]

           R. Hawes: I seek leave to make an introduction.

           Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

           R. Hawes: Earlier today I introduced a class from Hatzic Elementary that was actually held up, and they weren't in the House. That was a practice; this is the real introduction. They are here. It's a grade 7 class from Hatzic Elementary in Mission with their teacher, Mrs. Heron, and a number of adult chaperons. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

           J. MacPhail: It was actually the Minister of Finance who said the reason they had to rush the forestry bills through was to resolve the softwood lumber dispute, so I was just quoting from the Minister of Finance — when he said that. For this Premier to somehow suggest that agreeing to an orderly schedule means the government can rush in dozens of bills at the last minute and invoke closure and that somehow that's what we agreed to is actually to just denigrate the institution, to denigrate parliament. But it's clear that that's what they've done all along, anyway. My colleague and I used every opportunity we had — not to rag the puck, not to ask the same question over and over again — but we were still cut off. Well, actually, we weren't cut off. The people of British Columbia were cut off, who required important answers.

           Perhaps the Premier could tell me what, in the WTO ruling yesterday, requires the changes to be made that his government is making in forest policy.

           Hon. G. Campbell: The WTO ruling that came down yesterday simply said that the Americans had not been correct in terms of saying that we were subsidizing our logs, our resource. And if they were correct, they weren't correct in the methodology they used, which is what we said all along. But let me be clear. The WTO ruling is a litigative route that we are following in British Columbia and in Canada. It has really very little to do with the issue that we're dealing with, with regard to softwood, except it gives us…. If we need to, it will allow us, hopefully, to bring the Americans to the table.

           The really important thing, I think, about the softwood agreement and the important thing about the policy initiatives is the WTO…. You know, I think, clearly the reason we're even there is because policy in the past was not transparent. People couldn't see through what we were doing and why we were generating the resources we have. Literally government after government — not just this government, not simply the last government, but previous governments — has gone through this constant, frankly, harassment from the American lumber industry that can't compete certainly with British Columbia and probably with Canada.

           What we're doing right now is putting in place a policy framework which we believe is required for British Columbia. It's a policy framework that encourages competition. It's a policy framework that encourages investment. It's a policy framework that we believe will encourage the long-term stability of the industry. It's a policy framework that will allow us to compete globally in all of the marketplaces against all of those who compete against us. And frankly, it's a policy framework that we can take down in terms of the issues that have been raised by the Americans and ask for a changed circumstance, which may have immediate and positive impacts on the people of British Columbia and the forest resource in British Columbia.

           I think it's a strategy that makes sense to deal with the WTO, with NAFTA. It's also a strategy that makes sense for us to negotiate a long-term, durable resolution to softwood, and that's exactly what we're trying to do.

[1625]

           J. Kwan: I can't help but get into the debate. The Premier said that it's more important for this House and for members of this House to organize their lives so that it justifies this government to ram legislation through and to ram estimates through. Yesterday we just went through a process in Committee A whereby Health estimates…. Forty percent of the province's budget is spent in the Health ministries. The opposition did not have ample time to engage in questioning the Minister for Intermediate and Long Term Care, even when the opposition had agreed when asked by the House Leader, the Minister of Finance, to allow for both this House, this chamber, and Committee A to operate simultaneously to facilitate Health Services estimates debate.

           We allowed for that last week, and then we were engaged in debate in Committee A. I was there engaging in debate with the Minister of State for Mental Health, and my colleague the opposition leader was in this House debating estimates with the Minister of Health Services. We were asked by the House Leader to actually stand down and wait until this week and let the Liberal MLAs ask their minister questions. In the spirit of cooperation, we did. We stood down, and lo and behold, by noon the House shut down, and it didn't resume. Opportunities for the government MLAs to ask their minister questions in Health estimates were shut down.

           We resumed debating this week, and we were in the House yesterday and Monday in that series of debates.

[ Page 7057 ]

The House, of course, began operating on Monday at 10 o'clock. The small House was not called for debate, and then they only started around 4 o'clock — 4:45 p.m. to be exact, if my memory serves me. Then all of a sudden yesterday, when debate got shut down in the small House and in this chamber, the Minister of Health Services accused the opposition of ragging the puck. That's simply untrue.

           Then the opposition got accused of taking the floor time and preventing Liberal MLAs from asking their minister questions. Two opposition members…. We have to split up into two different Houses, and somehow we delay the government's agenda. The Premier says we have opportunities to debate these issues with the respective ministers, and it simply is not true. I really have to raise that matter with the Premier.

           The other issue I want to raise with the Premier is this. The Premier says that he is building opportunities for prosperity for British Columbia. Well, he's been at it for two years — two years of building the opportunities for prosperity for British Columbia.

           In the Kitimat region that my colleague had just talked about, what have we seen? We've seen unemployment go up. We've seen residential property values go down. We've seen personal incomes, disposable income for individuals, go down. We've seen the unpaid property taxes go up. We've seen bankruptcies go up. We've seen populations leaving that region going up. So much for prosperity.

           If that's the definition of the Premier's prosperity for the region, I hate to think what the opposite is, because people will say, like in other ministries — and perhaps the Ministry of Children and Family Development: "Please, don't put us as your top priority." You know what? When that happens, they have nothing but bad news — nothing to celebrate.

           Now, I want to ask the Premier this question. He says he has a vision for the community, that prosperity is coming. When exactly will prosperity come? Is it going to be in their lifetime, or is it the next lifetime?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I'm the first to admit that we inherited a mess from the previous government.

           J. MacPhail: We'll get to that. We'll get to the statistics.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Okay. I think it's important for us to note that in terms of the previous government, we watched as people started to leave this province. It wasn't a place that people wanted to live, let alone come to. That was something that was brand-new in British Columbia. British Columbia, when the previous government was elected, was attracting people from not just all over the country but all over the world. We lost that through the decade of decline under the previous government.

           In the last year we created 79,000 new jobs in this province. Now, I'm the first to say that 79,000 is just a start, but it's 79,000 more jobs. In the last year for the first time we had over two million people at work in this province. In the last year, in fact, we watched as our economic growth in the province grew at triple the rate that forecasters had suggested it would. In the last year we watched as average take-home pay grew at three times the national average. It was the highest level of average growth in the country.

[1630]

           In the last year what we found was that investors had moved British Columbia from the last place they wanted to invest when this government was first elected to third place. I'm not pleased with third, but I know that we're moving in the right direction when you go from ten to three, and I have confidence we're going to move to one.

           When we talk about the northwest of this province, we think about the Tulsequah Chief. Finally we're moving forward with that. We look at the opportunities that are being provided to first nations, and finally we're moving forward with that. We look at the potential for offshore oil and gas. Finally we're moving forward to build the fact base for that. All of those are things that have been identified by people in that region of the province.

           Having said that, let me simply point out that this is a large province. I recognize that when you aggregate those numbers, some parts of the province have done better than other parts of the province. That's why what we're trying to do is build regional strategies that will respond to the needs of different regions of this province. If you think of the northwest, they have opportunities that we believe we can capitalize on. We're working with them to do that. If you think of the Kootenays, they have a different set of opportunities, which require different investments in public infrastructure that we can capitalize on and which will create even more employment in the Kootenays. When I think of the Cariboo-Chilcotin and I think of the challenges that they face there, I think of other opportunities that can be realized.

           The thrust of our government has clearly been — it was when we were elected, and it remains — to encourage private sector investment in this province, to encourage job creation, to encourage the development of small businesses. I recognize that many small businesses have had a great deal of difficulty, but I am heartened by the fact that recently small businesses were surveyed, and 78 percent of them said the government is going in the right direction. They want us to carry on. They want us to move forward. That's what we intend to do.

           J. MacPhail: We'll get into the economic indicators now and the progress that this government is making in the economy. That's what British Columbians voted for. It's true. They thought the Liberals were going to be better economic managers. We concede that. They didn't think that they were going to be more compassionate. They've certainly judged the Liberals on their performance in health and education, where the approval ratings for a government are at the lowest of any government in history.

 [ Page 7058 ]

           But the Premier says the economy is doing fine, that everything's on track. Here are the economic indicators from his own Progress Board. British Columbia is tenth in economic growth, ninth in social conditions, sixth in jobs — progress report. When compared to Alberta, Ontario, Washington State, Quebec, Oregon and California, B.C. ranks in the bottom third in all categories except the top marginal personal income tax rate. Yeah, that's true. The rich pay far less here. That's the good news. That, of course, is because the Premier stepped over the threshold on day one and brought in a gigantic, massive tax cut to the richest in this province. Unfortunately, though, there was one part of that promise that they forgot to deliver on, and that was that the tax cuts would pay for themselves, so half a promise kept — the promise to the rich friends, but not to the rest of British Columbia.

           Pretty much everybody has judged. The Dominion Bond Rating Service has judged that the tax cuts have not paid for themselves and won't for quite a while. As a matter of fact, it says five years. Everybody pretty much admits that the tax-cut policy was a failure, and we now know that it's inflicting hardship on British Columbians. But let's look at that. The most recent report forecast of RBC Financial Group shows British Columbia dead last in economic growth — dead last. It also shows that there's very little progress in manufacturing shipments and in international exports. What it does show is this: British Columbia had the weakest job growth in all of Canada.

           Hon. G. Collins: That's not true.

           J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance…. I'm so sorry. I'll have to quote from it right here. Let me just find it. Here's what it says. This is from March 2003. They were statistics from March 2003. It's out of B.C.'s current Trends. Labour market changes.

[1635]

           Poor Minister of Finance. I can understand why he would object to this. "On an average annual basis, employment in British Columbia increased by only 0.9 percent…the weakest performance in Canada." I'm so sorry I have to read that into the record for the Minister of Finance.

           Okay. What about the heartlands strategy? On a regional basis, 80 percent of the job growth was in the Vancouver area. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant understands that she's not in the heartlands. I know that in Vancouver-Hastings we're not in the heartlands. That 80 percent of new jobs in the Vancouver area — they're not in the heartlands. What kind of message is the Premier sending to what he claims to be his favourite area code? That would be 250. What he's saying is: "While I make these great claims about job creation, even though they're the weakest in Canada, the jobs that are being created aren't even in the heartlands."

           What is the final consensus of RBC Financial Group? No significant improvement expected at all until 2004.

           This week we learned that new-car sales…. That was a stat the Premier used to like to claim. In fact, if I heard him say "Car sales are up" once, I heard him say it three dozen times. Well, the news this week is that new-car sales are down. In fact, in British Columbia they're down lower than every other province. They're down by 10.5 percent. New-car sales have plummeted the furthest. They're down all across Canada, but they have plummeted the furthest in British Columbia.

           Retail sales for March 2003, Statistics Canada: "Retail sales all across Canada for the month of March down by 0.7 percent." In British Columbia they plummeted by 2.9 percent, more than four times the national rate — plummeted. What does all this mean? It means that B.C.'s economy is showing the slowest growth in Canada: 2.6 percent this year for '03. Again number ten.

           The Premier tries to say take-home pay has expanded. That's not true. The most recent statistics — and I'm happy to bring these to the Premier's attention…. In the first two months of 2003 British Columbia was the only province where take-home pay experienced negative…. I can't use this term "negative growth," as an economist. That is the term, but it's ridiculous. It showed a real decline in the first two months of 2003. In fact, in '02 wages increased 1.2 percent here in British Columbia, and that was the lowest growth in Canada.

           The most recent statistic on poverty released just this week by Human Resources Development Canada using the new market basket measure…. It's new, but what it shows is that an estimated 20 percent of British Columbians live below the cutoff line for poverty — the new one — and that is second only to Newfoundland. Last statistic: Vancouver is the most expensive place in Canada to live. The poverty line is set at $27,800.

           Perhaps the Premier could actually give the real-time statistics of what evidence he has to show that his government has the economy on track.

[1640]

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, I think it is important to note that I agree with the member opposite that often we can all find statistics that reflect what we'd like them to say, but we'll….

           Interjection.

           Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to have a statistical debate. One of the reasons that the Progress Board was laid out was so that we could actually benchmark what we were doing and see what kind of progress was being made over time. I'm sure the member opposite has spent a great deal of time poring through the Progress Board report so that she, like the rest of us, can learn from it.

           As we learn from it, one of the things that the Progress Board said quite specifically is when you take actions, there is time for those actions to move and to have the positive impacts they might as they go through the economy. They say, in fact, that indicators lag actual conditions, and actions today won't register until the 2005 report.

           By the same token, actions that were taken before come to fruition now. The whole purpose for the

[ Page 7059 ]

changes that this government has implemented was to stem the tide of decline that was hitting the people of British Columbia in community after community, in industry after industry. For example, in the technology industry, as a result of the previous government's decisions, fully 50 percent of all jobs in technology that were created by British Columbia companies, which were invested in by British Columbians, were being put outside of our province. They were put outside of our province because of the tax regime. They were put outside of our province because of our regulatory regime. They were put outside of our province because we had a government that worked against investment.

           This government changed that. We now have watched as technology industries are telling us they're able to recruit people into British Columbia. They're actually closing offices that they had to relocate outside of British Columbia and bringing them home. Some of our most successful companies — Electronic Arts, just a small little company….

           Interjection.

           Hon. G. Campbell: It is true. One of the largest software developers in entertainment software across the world has relocated in British Columbia. I think Paul Lee, who happens to be the chair of the Premier's Technology Council, would point out to you that what we have done has made a huge difference to the technology industry. The technology industry association would tell you it has made a big difference to the technology industry. The biotechnology industry would tell you it has made a big difference to the technology industry.

           We look at our province, and we say to ourselves: how do we measure whether we're doing well or not? The Progress Board is one way we can do that on an ongoing basis. It's very specific, and it sets benchmarks for us to follow.

           The bond rating agencies have all been very specific in looking at the plan that was laid out in February of 2002 and in taking that plan and watching as we go through it. We had positive reports from the bond rating agencies coming out of our budget cycle in 2003 because they do believe that we have a plan. They're concerned not that we have a plan; they're concerned that we stick with it. They're concerned that we show the discipline that's required to make sure we realize our plan. I can tell you we intend to do that.

           In British Columbia employment in December was up 78,000 jobs. That's a 4.1 percent increase. That's higher year over year than the national average was. New vehicle sales were up. I think people in the automobile industry will tell you that they are facing challenges today in British Columbia and in other parts of the country. Residential building permits are up. Housing starts are up. Average weekly wages are up. Home sales are up. Mineral exploration is up. The port of Vancouver is up in terms of its cargo traffic. Our cruise ship facilities are up. All of those things are happening.

           Now, the member opposite could stand up and say: "Well, hold it. We know there are some cruise ship activities that have been in decline. We know that SARS has created a problem in the tourism industry." We recognize that. Rather than rail against that, what we're trying to do is deal with that positively. We know there are things we can do in British Columbia that set our economy apart and prepare it to take advantage of good global news. We haven't exactly been overwhelmed with good global news, but it's not an excuse for us not to act.

           Interjection.

           The Chair: Order.

           Hon. G. Campbell: I was just pointing out that that's not an excuse for us not to act in British Columbia. We will not use that as an excuse. We will continue to work to build the right economic framework in the province of British Columbia that encourages investment. Today investment intentions in British Columbia are the second highest in the entire country. That is a significant indicator. Now, the opposition can decide to ignore it, and that's what they did in the past. It obviously wasn't an indicator they cared about, because we watched as investment intentions dropped to the bottom of the list. We're number two now. Those investments will generate capital investments. Those capital investments will generate opportunities in construction; they will generate opportunities in business development.

[1645]

           We do have a strategy for business development. It's the opposite of the previous government's strategy. We think we should encourage small businesses to become big businesses in British Columbia, and that's what we're going to do. We can see that the evidence is there. We've got Noranda coming back to the province of British Columbia to participate in exploration. We're watching as the mining industry is starting to have some of its hope rekindled after it was doused by the previous government. All of those things are part of building a long-term economic future that will create prosperity not just in one part of the province or another but in all of the province.

           If I can just respond quickly to the member opposite's comments with regard to jobs. There is no one who deals with the challenges that we face right now, in government anywhere that I'm aware of, that doesn't deal with the challenges of rural-urban change. There is unquestionably a movement of people from rural communities to urban communities. What we want to be sure we're doing in British Columbia is allowing people to make the choice to live in rural and regional communities. We want to encourage those regional centres. We want to encourage regional economies. That's what this government intends to do. Whether it's northern Vancouver Island or the South Cariboo, whether it's the Okanagan or the Kootenay, whether it's the Peace or the northwest, whether it's the great north central plateau — we want to encourage those communities to actually build the kind of future they want. We know they're going to do that on a resource

[ Page 7060 ]

base. We know they're going to do that by us opening up the province to investment. We know they're going to do that by us opening up the province to economic opportunity.

           I'm the first to stand in this House and recognize that I am an MLA from the city of Vancouver. I believe we have got to be sure that the opportunities that were felt in Vancouver are also felt in other parts of the province. They may be different, but we want the opportunities to be there. I don't denigrate the 79,000 new jobs we had in 2002. I don't pretend that I can make jobs go somewhere. That's the difference between this government and the previous government. The previous government thought they could make people go to jobs; they could make them go with the forest and timber accord; they could make them go and invest in an aluminum smelter; they could make people do things. We can't. We have to create an environment that encourages people to do things. We can't punish people into creating jobs. We have to make sure that they know they're welcome here as they create jobs. That's what we intend to do in this government.

           We look today in this province at the energy resource, an enormous resource that was untapped in terms of its full potential, because somehow or other, people didn't recognize that by creating an environment where exploration was encouraged, we would actually watch as the economy of this province changed. By creating a framework for coalbed methane, we create an opportunity for the economies on Vancouver Island and throughout the province of British Columbia. By investing in transportation infrastructure, we create economic opportunities for the entire province of British Columbia. We look today, and there are 150 drill rigs that are right now coming into British Columbia and that are at work. That's a record. That's important. It's jobs, and it's revenue to support critical public services like health care and education.

           We intend to stay that course. We see the encouraging signs. We see the investment intentions, and we want to continue on that so those investment intentions become a reality, so that capital comes into the province and those jobs come into the province, and they come into the province in each community and in every region of the province of British Columbia.

           J. MacPhail: Yes, oil and gas is doing very well. It has been doing very well since 1998. There's no question about that. Oil and gas has now exceeded the forest industry for giving revenue to British Columbia. That trend started in 1998 — absolutely.

[1650]

           Every single other indicator of economic success that this Premier espouses is because of a consumer-driven economy — every single indicator. Every single indicator that he is saying is up is up all across Canada, because the consumer-driven side of growth in Canada is as a result of our interest rate policies that are now changing. There isn't any investment going on in British Columbia that's driving the economy — none. It's all consumer driven. The most disturbing statistics recently around retail sales and shrinking paycheques should disturb the Premier, because both of those statistics have a dire and negative effect on a consumer-driven economy.

           The Premier says he can't move jobs around the province. Fair enough. That's certainly the ideology of his economic policies. However, what the Premier can do is take jobs away from communities, and that's what he's done. He's closed down courthouses. He's closed down schools. He's laid off public employees by the thousands. That's what he's done.

           He made a deal with Skeena Cellulose. He sold Skeena Cellulose with no return whatsoever, so people are leaving the Stikine. He's allowing Alcan to sell power and not live up to their requirement to use it for production, so people are leaving Kitimat.

           While the Premier claims — and God forbid that we have a discussion about job creation…. He likes to claim credit for the job creation in the province, but he did admit that it has nothing to do with him. Fair enough. But he can take jobs away, and that's what he's done in the heartlands.

           Let's just go to the people who actually judge which direction the economy's going in this province. Let's just look at what they have to say about trends. The chartered accountants were very harsh critics of the 1990s — extremely harsh critics. They cheered. In fact, on the day that the Premier crossed over into his new office and gave away a big tax cut, I think they were the ones who said: "Oh, it's Christmas in July." Or was that the Business Council? It was either the Business Council or the chartered accountants, but they said: "Oh, this is so wonderful." That's who claimed…. [Laughter]

           Yeah, I'm not sure the Minister of Finance is contributing to a very healthy debate here. It is interesting how they find it so funny — this kind of stuff. It is interesting.

           Let's see how he's laughing at this — the chartered accountants. January 7, 2002, a lovely news release from the chartered accountants. "CAs" — the chartered accountants — "give high marks to the B.C. government: Ipsos-Reid survey. Results of the survey released last week show that despite challenges, 62 percent of CAs expect the economy to improve in 2002."

           Here we are. Here's the news release from last week, May 26, 2003: "Eighteen months ago just about every CA in the province said the B.C. economy was in poor shape. Fast-forward to today, and one-third of CAs say the economy is doing well. However, the majority — 61 percent — still believe the economy is in poor shape." So 62 percent expected the economy to improve in 2002, and that plummeted.

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: Oh, the poor Minister of Finance. I wish he wouldn't heckle his own poor statistics.

           Fully half of that group now says the economy is still in poor shape — fully half. That's exactly what it is. That's not the opposition. That's not the Canadian Cen-

[ Page 7061 ]

tre for Policy Alternatives. That's the CAs trying desperately to not criticize the government that they said gave them Christmas in July. It turns out even the CAs — six out of ten — say the economy is in lousy shape.

[1655]

           Okay, that was after the two-year anniversary of this government, but no matter what, this government likes to claim everything's fine and buries their head in the sand.

           Let me ask this of the Premier, then. The statistics he takes great pride in, the consumer-driven aspect of the economy…. What discussions, if any, has the Premier had with the first ministers and the Prime Minister about interest rate policies?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The Minister of Finance has had discussions with the Bank of Canada. I have not specifically dealt with that with the first ministers. The rest of the first ministers will be meeting in June, and we'll be meeting in force as first ministers in July.

           J. MacPhail: Could the Premier show me where this item is on the agenda? Has he put it on the agenda?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The economy of the country is always on the agenda.

           J. MacPhail: Interest rate policies was the question.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Interest rate policies would be one of many things that we, I'm sure, will have an opportunity to discuss. It is important for the member opposite to know that the Premiers actually are working in a cohesive manner in terms of these items and others.

           It's also important for the member opposite to know that we have been focusing our attention with the federal government to make sure that British Columbia gets its fair share. It's also important for the member opposite to know that the Ministry of Finance deals through the ministers of finance at the provincial level.

           J. MacPhail: What information does the Premier have that he'll then be taking to the first ministers meeting about the effect of interest rate…?

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: What information will the Premier be taking about the effect of the interest rate policy of the Bank of Canada on the B.C. economy and of the dollar change in relation to the U.S. dollar — the Canadian dollar change in relation to the U.S. dollar — and the effects of that on a small, open economy?

           Hon. G. Campbell: As we develop the agenda we will be moving forward with, with the first ministers and with the western Premiers, there are a number of items we will have on the agenda that we will develop in concert with other Premiers.

           We have a finance ministers' report that has been prepared, which will be brought forward. I haven't seen the final copy of that report, but I don't believe it specifically deals with interest rates. But clearly, the rise of the Canadian dollar in a small trading economy is having some impacts across the country, and it may well be something that we focus our attention on during the discussions.

           [J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

           J. MacPhail: Let me read the recent economic indicators from British Columbia, month-over-month change, if I may. This is from Statistics Canada. Employment, month over month, is down by 0.4 percent, and unemployment is up by 0.4 percent. Participation rate is down. Help-wanted index has fallen by 0.7 percent. The average weekly earnings, month over month, fell by 0.3 percent. The consumer price index has also fallen by 0.2 percent, and retail sales are down by 2. 9 percent. Manufacturing shipments, month over month as of March of this year, are down by 0.4 percent.

           I am trying to give all of the statistics. I think I've read every single statistic off that page. Yes, I have, as a matter of fact, so I'm not being selective. So here we are, Mr. Chair — Madam Chair, Mr. Chair — with these changes….

           An Hon. Member: Make up your mind.

           J. MacPhail: Sorry. Yes. I think it's Mr. Chair. It is Mr. Chair. I can pretty much guarantee that.

           Interjections.

           J. MacPhail: Yes, I've seen him without his robe on. Off, on — whatever.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Moving right along.

[1700]

           J. MacPhail: Yes, exactly.

           So these indicators start to change as the interest rate policy in British Columbia has changed. These indicators are indicators that will have a particular concern for a consumer-driven economy. This is the time when the Premier can stand up and demonstrate the leadership around the effects that policy can have on the economy.

           Yes, we are a small, open economy. We are price-takers — as we have been since the late 1970s — in the commodities market. Our interest rate policy is set by the Bank of Canada. That is true. But there are uneven effects across this nation around Bank of Canada policies.

           I'm wondering what the Premier will be urging the Prime Minister to do in terms of making a case to the Bank of Canada for a different interest rate policy.

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me say that in terms of the dramatic rise in the value of the Canadian dollar,

[ Page 7062 ]

it's actually been a serious reduction in the value of the American dollar. But that rise which has been created clearly has some immediate impacts on all of us.

           However, I should say this too. A managed interest rate policy that allows the Canadian dollar to move up is a positive thing for us. We should recognize that in the long term, there are literally thousands and thousands of consumers who would benefit from that.

           Having said that, the member opposite has mentioned the power of consumer opportunities that has happened. Really, we have had a number of consumer-positive indicators. Those consumer-positive indicators are the result, I would suggest, at least in part — not fully, because nothing we do can we take full credit for — of paycheques having grown in this province.

           It may be that the member, when she was Minister of Finance, actually did everything on the basis of month over month, and that's why there was so much uncertainty and why we had so few investors in British Columbia. Hon. Chair, let me just remind you that new jobs, year over year, 2000…. In '01-02 there were 78,000 new jobs in British Columbia. That's a 4.1 percent growth. The nation was up 3.7 percent. We did better than the national average. New vehicle sales were up, year over year, 13.1 percent. Nationally, they were up 8.5 percent. In the month of March this year we had 17,000 new jobs in the province. The month before that we had 11,000 new jobs. The trend is going in the right direction.

           I don't and I would not want a minister of finance to be dealing with what's happening one month to the next month. I want to look at how we can build year over year. Then I want to look at how we can build over a decade so that we have the kind of growth and opportunities we need.

           When you look at average weekly wage…. The member opposite can complain about average weekly wage, but from December '01 to December '02 average weekly wages in this province were up 5.1 percent. That's the highest increase in Canada. The national average was 1.6 percent. Now, that's the right trend. We haven't finished, but we are moving forward on that.

           In terms of working with other first ministers — and I think the member opposite knows this — the Prime Minister doesn't meet with us as first ministers all the time. We just had a meeting in February. We will meet with first ministers from the western provinces and the territories in June. We will meet with the first ministers across the country at the annual Premiers' meeting in Prince Edward Island in July.

           We will have a chance to touch base on a number of issues: trade issues, the economy of the country and specifically health care, which remains the top priority for all of the provinces in terms of trying to get some balance into health care. I'm sure we'll deal with institutional changes that are required. All of those things are going to be on the agenda. As we develop that agenda in concert with the ministers and the Premiers, I am sure we will have the opportunity to move forward and build an even stronger economy for British Columbia.

           J. MacPhail: The Premier is absolutely right that the reason the Canadian dollar is rising is because the U.S. dollar is falling. And the reason why the U.S. dollar is falling is because the Federal Reserve has kept the interest rates low. They've done that specifically to encourage greater exports from the United States and also to protect against deflation. That's what they've done.

[1705]

           It's interest rate policy that does that. That was my only point — that interest rate policy is the one that affects the value of your currency. The differential now between interest rates in the United States and in Canada is allowing the United States to use its monetary policy to encourage job growth and exports at the expense of the Canadian exports.

           I don't know of any leader now who wants to actually say it's good to encourage cheaper imports, which is what the high Canadian dollar does. It encourages cheaper imports. We're a net exporter — even in British Columbia we're a net exporter — so the net effect of a high dollar is to hurt us. If it's a consumer-driven economy, not an investor-driven economy, you don't want to encourage cheaper imports. That's all we've got going for us: consumers buying local goods, Canadian-made goods. So that's why I raised….

           The Premier said he knows how difficult it is and the challenges facing the encouragement of growth around the province. He deliberately didn't use the words "the heartlands." I thought that was interesting. He didn't use "the heartlands." He may be in trouble. He may be in trouble a little bit with Martyn Brown for not using the word "heartlands," but nevertheless he didn't.

           I was actually fooling around on my computer preparing for these estimates. I wanted to spend quite a bit of time on the heartlands strategy, so I typed in "heartlands strategy." First of all, you have to go to the government's main website, and I typed in "heartlands strategy." Well, there's no direct link on that page to heartlands strategy. I then typed in the words "heartlands strategy," and I came up with 43 pages.

           I thought: "Oh, good, that's encouraging. We've got a strategy here." Well, wrong. No strategy. Here's what the 43 pages coughed up. Here's what it was: 39 pages of Hansard records referencing the heartlands, and it turns out that all of those references are within the last three and a half months. Prior to that time there were no references. On 43 pages, when I typed in "heartlands strategy," there were 39 Hansard pages of speeches that the MLAs — but not for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant or Vancouver-Hastings — had made using "the heartlands strategy," and then there were four pages of news releases that used the term "heartlands."

           Unless the Premier can point me to some other aspect of the website, I'd have to come to the conclusion that the heartlands strategy is a myth, maybe even bordering on propaganda. To dispel that myth, could

[ Page 7063 ]

the Premier point me to where the heartlands strategy is found?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The government's initiatives with regard to the heartlands cover virtually all of government, so I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this.

           First, the heartlands strategy includes transportation investment — transportation investment in Highway 1; transportation investment in Highway 97, Highway 93 and Highway 16; transportation investment in the Peace; $37 million of transportation investment which we know will specifically encourage the oil and gas industry in the province.

           Oil and gas exploration is up. That's part of the heartlands strategy. There's the new framework to develop coalbed methane throughout the province. I'm sure the member won't be surprised to hear there is not a lot of evidence of coalbed methane in Vancouver-Hastings or Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, but there is all over the province in the heartlands of British Columbia.

[1710]

           Offshore oil and gas is part of a heartlands strategy. It is a strategy that potentially can develop offshore oil and gas resources in a way that is environmentally sound and secure, that encourages job creation not just in the northwest, as we talked earlier, but throughout Vancouver Island. These are major opportunities for the heartlands of the province.

           Our forest reforms are part of a heartlands economic strategy to create long-term, sustainable forest investment and long-term, sustainable jobs in forestry in British Columbia.

           The mining reforms we are bringing in so that there is one-stop shopping in terms of mining and permitting, which will reverse the trend of the previous government and the member's government where one out of two people in the mining industry lost their jobs throughout the 1990s. The mining industry was a critical industry in British Columbia in the past. It should be in the future. I believe people who are in the mining industry deserve to know that is part of our heartlands strategy. It's started to pay off, but as we've talked about throughout this afternoon so far, unfortunately it takes some time. We had a 25 percent increase in exploration in the first full year of this government. We have a 50 percent increase that's anticipated for this year.

           Let me put that in context for you. It's estimated that we need about $200 million a year in exploration in order to have a sustainable, long-term mining industry in this province. Where mines reach their economic life…. When it's over, they close. We want to have other mines that are opening and creating opportunities. Last week we just announced an additional $2.1 million for exploration and geotechnical surveys to help in encouraging that exploration take place. That will be very positive for the heartlands of British Columbia.

           The new technology development that we're doing, creating a broadband framework that reaches into the furthest corner of this province so that we provide access to people to the information opportunities of the Internet, is part of a heartlands strategy. The development of a new technology centre in the Okanagan Valley — the Silicon Vineyard, as we call it — is part of a heartlands strategy.

           The strategy of deciding that we're going to regionalize health care so that for the first time in the history of this province, we have doctors that are going to be trained in the north at UNBC. For the first time in the history of this province we will have doctors that will be trained at the University of Victoria. The opportunities to create licensed practical nurses and nursing positions throughout the province — all of those things are part of a heartlands strategy. The special program that's put in place for medical practitioners and professionals who are willing to serve in heartlands communities — in rural, remote communities across this province — is part of the heartlands strategy.

           The opening up of the port of Prince Rupert as a cruise ship facility, as a containerized facility, as a transportation hub not just for the northern part of our province — for the forest industry, the mining industry, the agricultural industry — but for the heart of our country, for the prairie provinces, for the heart of the continent, in the United States, where we can move those goods through the port of Prince Rupert to the massive markets in Asia is part of our heartlands strategy.

           The Olympic live sites are part of a heartlands strategy that says that the Olympics are going to be owned by all of this province. Every young person in this province is going to benefit, regardless of the size of the community they live in, regardless of how far they may be away from the specific site. They will have the opportunity to participate in the excitement of the Olympics. All of those are part of a heartlands strategy.

           The B.C. resort task force is part of a heartlands strategy. The Whistler-Pemberton corridor was the fastest-growing economic corridor in this province in the last five years. We see that opportunity in Big White in Kelowna, in Silver Star in Vernon, in Invermere at Panorama, in Kimberley at the Kimberley Resort, in Fernie at the Fernie Alpine Resort, in Golden at the Kicking Horse Resort, in Dawson Creek at Powder King resort, in Terrace at the Hudson Bay resort, in Courtenay at Mount Washington. All of those are opportunities.

           All of these are opportunities that are about the heartlands. They're about reaching out and remembering that that part of our province drives our economy, drives our quality of life, drives the opportunities for people throughout British Columbia.

[1715]

           I'm sorry I haven't packaged it in a small way so that the member opposite could access it quickly. I'm glad to do that, though, because it is important for British Columbians to understand that it's when we think of this province as one province…. Yes, we have a great heartlands in the province, and we have a great opportunity to build in the regions of this province. But

[ Page 7064 ]

when we think of ourselves as one province working together, reinforcing our goals and our objectives, helping each other reach our goals and our objectives, there's really very little that we can't accomplish in British Columbia. Those are the goals we've set for ourselves as a government, not one ministry but as one government — one government serving the needs of all of the people of British Columbia.

           J. MacPhail: Well, isn't that interesting? There's so much focus on the heartlands, yet we can't find it. The Premier stood up and just gave a string of rhetoric that he's been giving since his election, and yet there was a change. There was a change in what this government espoused in February of this year. The Premier and all of his little Liberal MLAs stood up and started talking about the heartlands strategy. So I don't think it's unusual that someone would expect that a strategy would be written down with focus and priorities and costs.

           The Premier just stood up…. I expect that people wouldn't have thought that Whistler was part of the heartlands; I actually don't think they would have thought that. Perhaps the Premier…. The other thing is that I looked through the Premier's service plan, and there's not a mention of the heartlands strategy.

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: Not a mention of it. If this is the focus of this Premier — the heartlands strategy — yet there's nothing written down and there's nothing in his service plan, then perhaps he could tell us where we could turn to find the performance measures upon which he is so keen and the performance targets that he is so keen on in the heartlands strategy.

           Hon. G. Campbell: I would encourage the member opposite to go through the ministerial service plans. She will see, in a number of cases, references specifically to how we can improve the quality of life for all British Columbians in the heartlands of this province as well as in the urban centres of this province. I think that's important for the member opposite to know. She says she can never find the heartlands. She couldn't find them before when she was in government, either.

           The fact is I'm glad to go through this again. Of the $650 million that will be generated from the new gas tax, we know that those dollars are going to heartlands roads throughout this province. There is $210 million that is actually going….

           Interjection.

           The Chair: Order, please. Member, please give the courtesy of listening to the answer.

           Hon. G. Campbell: There is $210 million going to rural and resource roads. There is over $300 million that's going to rehabilitation of those roads throughout the province, which is because the previous government didn't recognize the importance of transportation to the heartlands of this province, and they didn't invest. Unfortunately, if we don't invest in them now, we're going to watch as those costs continue to rise. There's $37 million going to the energy industry to make sure that those resource road are available for energy exploitation.

           All of those are opportunities for the member opposite to see how this government is reaching out to all corners of the province. We're reaching out to all corners of the province, and we're building on the assets of all corners of this province. I think the heartlands will see the benefits in terms of education, in terms of health care and in terms of the economy. All of those things are critical to the long-term future of the entire province of British Columbia.

           J. MacPhail: Does the Premier have any performance measures or performance targets around his heartlands strategy?

           Hon. G. Campbell: They are throughout the service plans of government.

           J. MacPhail: So am I to conclude that the heartlands strategy is just the way this Premier is governing — that there is actually no strategy?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Let me go through the strategy for the member opposite again, because I do like to repeat it on a regular basis, and I will.

           The economy of British Columbia is based on forestry, on agriculture, on tourism, on mining, on energy, on retailing and on making sure that the people of British Columbia have full opportunities to pursue their economic objectives. We see that as something that has been sadly missing in the heartlands.

[1720]

           It was easy for the previous government to turn their backs on the northwest of the province. It was easy for the previous government to watch as 15,000 people lost their jobs in the forest industry. It was evidently easy for the previous government to watch as mill after mill closed in the forest industry in British Columbia. It must have been easy for the previous government to watch as one out of two people in the mining industry lost their jobs throughout the 1990s, because we know this: the previous government didn't act to change that. This government is doing that.

           We are acting to change it throughout government. We're acting to change it in Health Services; in Competition, Science and Enterprise; in Energy and Mines; in Forests. Our strategy is to move comprehensively and aggressively to open up our province and the heartlands to opportunity.

           Those opportunities and that opening-up come from our looking at transportation options. This government's first transportation priority was to start to improve the quality of the Trans-Canada Highway through the Kicking Horse canyon. That's a $670 million project. It will take some time to build it. We're not

[ Page 7065 ]

talking Lego here. We're talking roads through the Rocky Mountains.

           The strategy this government has in place will assure that each region of the province can reach its full potential, whether it's in forestry, tourism, education or health care. We want to be sure that this government is helping, enabling, regions to pursue their goals and objectives. That's a strategy.

           The member opposite may not agree with it. The member opposite may not think it's in a Reader's Digest form for her, but I can tell you, the member opposite can go to the service plans of each ministry of this government, can read them and see that this government will pursue a strategy that will build the prosperity of British Columbia, the long-term future of the communities of this province, and will give people a sense of confidence in their future so that they will stay in those communities and build the kind of economic, social infrastructure that's essential to build a top-notch quality of life.

           J. MacPhail: Well, the short answer is: there are no performance measures for the heartlands strategy, because the heartlands strategy was a figment of Martyn Brown's imagination, done shortly in January to divert attention and try to have something that everybody could rally around — some Liberal MLAs who were feeling the heat. He came up with the term "heartlands," and there's nothing behind it. We'll get to the service plans, where the Premier will have to answer for how the service plans are affecting the heartlands.

           Who's in charge of the heartlands strategy? What's the bureaucratic structure for it?

           Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, each minister of government is responsible for their particular ministry and for assuring that the ministry is thriving. Granted, they've had a lot of work to do to overcome some of the challenges they inherited, but I think they are making very good progress.

           In terms of building a regional economic capacity, for example, the B.C. resorts strategy — under the Competition, Science and Enterprise ministry — will be managed throughout government. It's a cross-government initiative. It will require Land and Water B.C., Tourism British Columbia, Transportation, Forests, WLAP…. All of those groups will be required to make sure we can maximize the potential for resorts throughout the province.

           The government is responsible for carrying these programs out. The government is responsible for being sure the heartlands are thriving, as well as the urban centres of our province. The government will certainly be held to account for that.

           Employment, obviously, is something we're concerned about. We're concerned about building new employment opportunities in this government. We're looking at new employment opportunities in energy and mining. We're looking at stabilizing employment opportunities in forestry. We're looking at employment opportunities generated by the transportation infrastructure and new employment opportunities generated by technology. All of those things are important for us to make sure that we move forward.

           This is not simply a label. This is a thrust of what the government is undertaking to do. The substance behind this is found…. I know it's tough for the member opposite, whose government would announce a mental health plan and not fund it; whose government would announce one thing after another and not fund them or have any program behind them. This….

           The Chair: Excuse me, Premier. Members, please make your comments to the Chair.

[1725]

           Hon. G. Campbell: I apologize, hon. Chair.

           I know it's difficult sometimes for some members to recognize that government has to work in concert. We will be building regional economic opportunities and hopefully focusing on regional strengths through Competition, Science and Enterprise, as I mentioned. But in terms of looking at the province and our heartlands strategy, as I say, it's difficult. It takes some time, but if the member opposite decides that she cares enough to look through the service plans of the ministries, she will see that we indeed are going to be delivering the quality of economy and the quality of the social services that are necessary for the heartlands of British Columbia to thrive.

           J. MacPhail: We'll get to what the service plans mean for the heartlands in terms of hospitals, schools, courthouses, roads and highway tolls — that kind of thing.

           I was trying to find out whether the heartlands strategy said that the tolls on the Coquihalla Highway would be on there for 55 years — couldn't find it.

           Is there no bureaucrat in charge of the heartlands strategy? Is there no one assigned to it? That was my question.

           Hon. G. Campbell: I want the member opposite to understand this: every minister is responsible for carrying out the heartlands strategy within their ministry. When we build the forest industry and revitalize it, that's part of the heartlands strategy. The Forests minister is responsible for that. When we build regional centres around tourism, the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise is responsible for that. This is, in fact, a comprehensive program in government. Government is going to deliver it, and government has delivered it.

           J. MacPhail: Who's Beth James?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Beth James is an assistant deputy minister in the Premier's office. She is now working as assistant deputy minister seconded to Competition, Science and Enterprise.

           J. MacPhail: Is she in charge of the heartlands strategy? That's what we were told, actually, by her department.

 [ Page 7066 ]

           Hon. G. Campbell: The ministers of government are responsible for the heartlands strategy.

           J. MacPhail: I asked the Premier…. I can understand him wanting to avoid this, because he looks silly, but I asked him what bureaucrats were in charge of the heartlands strategy. Is Beth James, the assistant deputy minister in CSE, responsible? Are her job requirements to deal with the heartlands strategy — yes or no?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Ms. James is seconded temporarily from the Premier's office. Part of her task is to gather together information around the regional economic development and the heartlands strategy.

           Again, the member opposite clearly doesn't understand this, but every ministry of government is responsible for the heartlands strategy. As we coordinate this through government, it's going to be essential that we recognize that there are things in the heartlands strategy that have cross-ministerial impacts. For example, to go back, the B.C. resort task force…. That's not one ministry. There are many ministries that will be involved in making sure we maximize the benefits of the B.C. resorts strategy. I don't know why this is so difficult for the member opposite to understand.

           J. MacPhail: Actually, Mr. Chair, it isn't difficult for me. I know it's just a fake strategy made up by Martyn Brown — a totally fake strategy.

           But the people of the interior, who are being harmed by this government, are trying to figure out what the heartlands strategy is. If there's one thing that upsets every single person that I've talked to from the interior, it's being called part of the heartlands. What qualifications does Beth James have for implementing the governmentwide economic strategy attached to the heartlands strategy?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Ms. James has been working for the government for some time. She is one of many people that are implementing the heartlands strategy.

           J. MacPhail: How long has she been working?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Since June of 2001, I believe.

[1730]

           J. MacPhail: When I was actually trying to find the strategy and couldn't find it, we made some calls to try to find out who in the bureaucracy we could talk to. We were told, "It's Beth James in the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise," and she'd actually been moved over there to deal specifically with the heartlands strategy. What are the qualifications? Why was she chosen?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I don't know where the member opposite is getting the information from. Ms. James was seconded temporarily from the Premier's office to Competition, Science and Enterprise. They are in the midst of having a review of the ministry. They want to focus, for example, as I mentioned, on the B.C. resort task force. One of her tasks in that job will be to help with the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise heartlands strategy.

           Again, I want the member opposite to understand that in terms of dealing with the heartlands of the province and the strategy, literally every ministry is involved in that in one way or another.

           J. MacPhail: Whatever resources we have to do our research, we just do it. We were told it was Beth James. What did she do before that?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Ms. James is assistant deputy minister and worked on the core review.

           J. MacPhail: I guess that's the core review that cuts programs by 23 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent. I guess that gave her the ability to do the heartlands strategy. Well, that's very interesting, because the Premier said: "Let's look at the service plans to see how they affect the heartlands strategy." Let's do that. Let's start.

           I've got the interior health authority. I've got their plan here. Here's what the heartlands strategy means for this. It says here…. Okay, it's from 2002. It was before Martyn Brown had made up the heartlands strategy, but it's still accurate. "Interior health plans to reduce 1,555 residential care beds during a two-step process." Is that the heartlands strategy?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The heartlands strategy is to ensure we are focusing resources on patients close to where they live. The heartlands strategy is to ensure, for the first time in the province, that all regions of the province are engaged in looking at how we can deliver service in the most effective way. The heartlands strategy is to ensure, for example, that physicians are trained in the north specifically in rural and remote medicine. The heartlands strategy is assuring that we are training nurses in communities throughout the province of British Columbia. The heartlands strategy is making sure that when we do train doctors and nurses, there are some incentives to make sure they have the opportunity to practise their professions in rural and more remote areas of the province of British Columbia. All of those things are part of a heartlands strategy.

           Critically, part of the heartlands strategy is to allow for regional health authorities to make decisions in the best interest of patients in their regions. The heartlands strategy is to ensure that accountability contracts are in place in British Columbia to make sure that patients in regions of this province are having the quality of care that they deserve and that we're measuring that care and that we're allowing people to develop their own responses to the challenges we face to health care in British Columbia.

           J. MacPhail: I've got more stats. It's interesting that the Premier didn't want to actually address the stats of how the service plans affect the heartlands strategy.

 [ Page 7067 ]

           The reason why I was asking about Beth James is…. Prior to being an ADM, was she not the executive assistant to Brenda Eaton and then moved right to ADM without any competition, and now is in charge of the heartlands strategy? That's why I'm curious as to what her experience was.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Ms. James was an executive assistant to my deputy minister for corporate restructuring. Is that correct? You're shaking your head.

           Interjection.

           Hon. G. Campbell: She was in a supportive position. There was a restructuring done in the office, and she was recommended as an assistant deputy minister.

           J. MacPhail: Was there a competition?

           Hon. G. Campbell: No, it was an OIC appointment.

[1735]

           J. MacPhail: So we have a person who was an executive assistant, then made assistant deputy minister without competition, and now that's who we get referred to — assistant deputy minister — as the person who we were told is in charge of the heartlands strategy. Interesting. Yeah, well, it's interesting. What were the qualifications that allowed for that skyrocketing career without any competition?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Just so we're all clear, Ms. James was at the executive director level. There was a reorganization done in the office. She, I believe, went up one grade in terms of that to assistant deputy minister. Her qualifications were that she is a very effective professional. She is very organized, she is very focused, and we felt that was an important qualification as we moved her forward.

           J. MacPhail: Just to be clear: in June 2001, when she was hired, she wasn't an executive assistant? The phone book would show she was an executive director? Sure?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I'd have to pull the OIC of Ms. James to be sure the member opposite has the correct information.

           J. MacPhail: Yeah, it's interesting, but it is surprising how the heartlands strategy…. It's supposed to be a real strategy, and the person in charge of the heartlands strategy hasn't had to prove her qualifications. The Premier lists her qualifications as an effective organizer. Well, wow. The heartlands strategy is now in charge of a person that, gee…. Sounds like I really want to rely on that person. She's a political appointee who started out as an executive assistant to the deputy minister, was put into assistant deputy minister…. Well, I'm sorry. That's the information we have. That's what we got out of the book. She started out as an executive assistant, went into an ADM position without competition, by OIC — a political appointee.

           I asked the Premier what the strategy is. He can't point to anything. It's because it's a partisan political strategy without any substance to it. When I ask him about the effect of the heartlands strategy on the interior health authority, he avoids it completely — the fact that they're going to reduce residential care beds by 1,555 in the interior health authority.

           Here's some more information, then, about the effects of the heartlands strategy. Acute care beds. In the interior for acute care beds in the health system the Premier said, "Just go to the service plan," so we did. The number of acute care beds in January 2002 in the interior: 1,513. Number of acute care beds in July 2002: 1,178 beds, a reduction of 335 beds. That's the result. They're not going into residential care beds. The Premier can't stand up and say, "Oh well, they're being moved into residential care beds," because they've been shut down too. How is that good for the heartlands strategy?

           Here's some interesting stuff. Let's go right around the interior health authority, which I think covers a large portion of the heartlands. We've seen what the northwest corner, in terms of Skeena Cellulose, has done for the heartlands. Let's see what it has done in the Kootenay area.

           The number of long-term care beds that exist now in the Fernie District Hospital is zero. There were eight there. In the Tom Uphill residential care facility in Fernie, there were 50 beds. There's now going to be zero. The Rocky Mountain Lodge in Cranbrook — there were 60 long-term care beds, and there's going to be zero now. Kimberley. Oh, I'm sorry. Kimberley hospital is gone — kaput. Kimberly hospital is no more at all. Creston.

[1740]

           Actually, there are reductions all over the place, but I'm just picking up the ones that are very, very noticeable. Creston, Pioneer Villa: 50 long-term care beds — down to zero. Golden and District Hospital: there were seven long-term care beds — down to zero. Slocan Community Hospital and Health Centre: there were five long-term care beds — down to zero. Boundary Lodge in Grand Forks: there were 29 long-term care beds — down to zero. Willowhaven in Nelson: there were 70 long-term care beds — down to zero. Trail, Kiro Manor: there were 86 long-term care beds — down to zero. Penticton: 100 long-term care beds — that's been reduced to 52, and then it will be down to zero. Joseph Benjamin, Kelowna, long-term care facility: 38 beds — down to zero.

           So that's what the heartlands strategy has done in the area of health care. But let's look at what it's done for schools. Does the Premier know how many schools have closed in the province in the last year?

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, with regard to health care, I think it is important to take this opportunity to make sure that the member opposite understands exactly what's going on in health care.

 [ Page 7068 ]

           The health reforms that were done were necessitated by, again, an unsustainable health care system that wasn't meeting the needs of patients. We said quite clearly when we ran for office that we would focus on the needs of patients. We also said quite clearly when we ran for office that we would remove the bureaucratic overload and allow regions of the province to help guide and shape the direction that we are going in.

           That's actually exactly what we've done. There's been a 41 percent savings in administrative costs. Every single one of those dollars has gone into patient care in this province. I think that's important.

           It's also important to recognize that the aging infrastructure that we had in British Columbia was not meeting the needs of patients. The technologies that we put in place were not meeting the needs of patients. The building formats that we used were not meeting the needs of patients. For us to change that required us to make some reforms and actually to listen to the advice that we were receiving from regional health authorities across this province, who are faced with very difficult challenges.

           There should not be one person in this House who doesn't believe that changing our health care system so that it meets the needs of patients isn't going to be something that challenges us for some time to come. When health care costs are growing at 7 to 8 percent a year, when Pharmacare costs are growing at 15 percent a year, it is critical for us to look at that and say: "How can we sustain it in the long term?"

           In looking to the health authorities, we started by saying: "Let's look at the aging population in British Columbia." Since 1991 — the Seaton royal commission report — it's been clearly identified that we had to provide for a continuum of care for people as they got older, that people wanted to stay and have the quality of life of living in their homes as long as they could. The independent living strategy that we're developing in British Columbia is to assure that we provide more choices to more seniors in British Columbia, because for too long there were too few choices for too many seniors.

           As we make those changes, it is important to recognize that one-size-fits-all solutions don't work, but that, indeed, if we focus resources on patient care in the province, we actually create opportunities for improvements in the quality of care in British Columbia by listening to the people in the regional authorities and responding to their suggestions and their directions.

           We intend to open 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds in the province by 2006. We are on track to do that. It is a difficult task. It requires creativity. It requires bringing people together around some common goals and common objectives. It requires tapping into the non-profit sector of our communities who want to be helpful in this, who want to move forward with this. I was just meeting the other day with the Salvation Army, who have a number of suggestions for how we can improve on the quality of services they can provide.

           It's very important for us to recognize that this is a societal challenge we are all engaged in, and I think the health authorities have done a very good job. We've watched already as the number of physicians that have been located…. We've increased the number of specialists and physicians in Prince George by 11. In Cranbrook, in the regional hospital…. Five new specialists in Cranbrook. Four new specialists in Trail. All of those specialists have been able to be recruited into British Columbia — into those regions of the province, into the heartlands of British Columbia — because we've changed the way we were doing things. Instead of driving physicians out, instead of not giving physicians the professional and personal support they need, we've been trying to make sure that those physicians get the care and support they need, the training they need and the secondments they need, to make sure that we can have the kind of long-term resilient and robust health care system that's necessary for every patient. So, Mr. Chair, we are doing that.

[1745]

           The changes we face in health care clearly are going to be challenges for all of us. We know that the Fernie Tom Uphill Home is now 50 beds. That's what it is. But a new home has been announced that will be 75 beds. That's an improvement. It takes some time to get there, but it will be an improvement. It's important to note….

           Interjections.

           The Chair: Order, members. Order, please. Let's hear the answer.

           Hon. G. Campbell: It's important to note, hon. Chair, that all of society has got to be included in coming up with the solutions to meet these challenges. This isn't going to be one part of the community or another. This is all of us that have a stake in being sure that we provide our communities with the care they need when they need it, in a sensible and affordable manner, Only if it's affordable do we actually have a long-term, sustainable system. I think most people understand that. Perhaps the member opposite disagrees with that.

           As we look at health care, we all should recognize that our aging population is going to start expanding at a rapid rate, a far more rapid rate than we're used to. The demands that we put on the system are going to increase dramatically. They're going to increase dramatically as we age and move through the system. We already know the children in our province…. If you're five to nine years old in this province, the average health care costs are about $800 a year. If you're over 90 years old in this province, the average health care cost is over $20,800 a year.

           Now, we want British Columbians to live long, healthy lives. The fastest-growing demographic cohort we have is 90-plus. We know that will put pressure on the health care system. We know it's happening. We cannot take the excuse that it's a surprise. The demographic baby boom is there. It is moving through our system, and it is creating new demands on the system.

           Just as it creates new health care demands at one end of the age spectrum, it creates changes in the other

[ Page 7069 ]

end — children. We've watched in our school system as the number of children in our school system has dropped dramatically, and it's continuing to drop. So, yes, we have to make difficult decisions, but again, those decisions are going to be made by local school boards.

           School boards will decide what the best decisions are that they can make. In the last two years we provided school boards with an additional $43 million in 2002-03, an additional $50 million this year and $143 million over the next three years. That's additional resources to what was there. That doesn't change the fact that school boards are going to have to make difficult decisions.

           Some school boards will decide to close schools where there are too many empty classrooms. Some school boards will decide to move students where there can be a broader array of programs. Those decisions will be made by school boards. School boards told us that if we gave them the flexibility they needed, they could find lots of resources to respond to the needs of their students. That's what we have empowered them to do, and that's what they're doing in British Columbia.

           J. Kwan: For the Premier's information, 44 schools closed across British Columbia. Of those 44, 42 were in the heartlands. I'd like the Premier to respond to how closing 42 schools in the heartlands communities is somehow good for the communities. For the Premier's information, he likes to brag about how their Minister of Education is protecting education, but the reality is this. It is this Premier and this government that have increased the cost pressures for the education system so that the school trustees do not have the resources to do the jobs they need to do.

           This Premier increased the energy costs, the gas tax costs, the MSP premium costs, the teacher salary costs and all the support staff costs without funding them. Then he turns around, and somehow he says he's protecting education, and somehow the school trustees who are forced to close schools in order to meet those increased pressures as a direct result of this government's policies so that they have to close 42 schools in the heartlands communities…. That somehow is good for the heartlands.

           Where in the Minister of Education's service plan does it say closing schools is good for the heartlands strategy? I'd like the Premier to respond to that.

[1750]

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me say what's good for the heartlands is that regional school boards make those decisions instead of someone in Victoria making the decisions. Secondly, let me point that over the last little while, what we've watched is that per-student funding has increased by $662 a year — $6,506 per student.

           As I've said to many people in the province, it seems to me the most important thing for us to do is to have not just an affordable school system but also one that focuses its resources on students. As much as the member opposite may…. She, in fact, is suggesting this: we should fund classrooms in schools regardless of whether there are students in them or not. We can't afford to do that.

           One of the critical things for us to do is to recognize….

           Interjection.

           The Chair: Order, please. Let's hear the answer.

           Hon. G. Campbell: I think if the member opposite actually understood how the education funding formula works, she'd recognize that we actually enhanced the contributions we make in the heartlands to try and make these decisions a little more manageable in terms of some of these communities where we have watched as student populations have shrunk.

           Our goal is to make sure we build an economy in the heartlands of the province that, in fact, is robust, which recognizes the opportunities various communities do present so families will be attracted to live in these communities — whether it's in the agriculture community, the forestry community, the mining community, the energy community, the tourism community, the retail and service community or the technology community — that are all available for the heartlands. We do need to see that starting to happen. That will, in fact, stabilize their student base.

           As we've added resources to those rural and heartlands communities throughout the province, we have confidence in heartlands school boards making the choices that are best for their children. I recognize that the previous government didn't. The previous government thought they could make all of the decisions centrally here in Victoria. We disagree with that. We want to provide school boards with resources. We've done that. They will make the decisions that are best for their students in their communities so they get a top-quality education regardless of where they live in British Columbia.

           J. Kwan: The Premier says they've increased the per-student funding, but what they've also done — what this government has done — as a result of direct government policies is to increase the cost pressures per student as well. The net effect in the classroom is that services have to be reduced. That is the reality. It's what's happening across British Columbia.

           Aside from schools closing across British Columbia, in the heartlands you actually see people having to increase their class sizes. We see that's the situation where people are losing support staff for children with special needs. We see teacher assistants being reduced. We see teacher-librarians being reduced all across the province.

           For the Premier to actually suggest that somehow that's good for the province and good for the community and the children there, I would assert that he is wildly mistaken.

 [ Page 7070 ]

           Does the Premier know how many schools will close in the coming year?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I cannot tell you what decisions school boards will make across the province over the coming year. I can tell you that education in this province is a critical service that we intend to make sure is delivered to meet the needs of students in British Columbia.

           Clearly, the previous government didn't have the same approach to education. They had seven Education ministers in ten years. The Education Committee did not meet under the previous government because it was so unimportant to them.

           This government actually recognizes education as a critical social development tool, a critical economic development tool and a critical preventative health care tool. All of those things are important.

           What we've done is provided school boards with the opportunity to make their decisions, to meet the needs of their children in their communities, in their school boards throughout the province. What we've done is added resources to school boards. What we've done is increased per-student funding by $662 over the last five years.

[1755]

           One of the things that's critical for people to know is that we are facing change, and we should understand that we have to face change. Even in the public sector, we have to face change. We particularly have to face change if we're going to be successful in meeting the needs of our students. Fortunately, we are watching, and already we've seen some improvements — improvements in graduation rates and particularly improvements in graduation rates of aboriginal children.

           All of those things are important. They are part of the service plan of the Ministry of Education. The accountability contracts are available for the member's office if they want to see them. They have been signed between the school boards and the government, but we should be clear. It is the government who is saying to those school boards: "You make the choices. You make the choices within the financial framework…."

           J. MacPhail: You're not giving them any money.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Only the member opposite would suggest that over $4.8 billion isn't any money. We've increased per-student funding substantially, and we are giving the school boards the opportunities to make decisions that meet the needs of their children — not of the member opposite's political agenda, but of the children in the regions of this province.

           J. Kwan: Maybe the Premier should take math 101, because he says that he's increased the funding per student while he's also increased the cost pressures. When the cost-pressure dollars are higher than what the funding is, then you actually have a negative impact in the classroom. That is what's happening right now across British Columbia.

           For the Premier's information, the answer to the question I asked of the Premier — how many schools will be closing in the coming year? — is 53, of which 40 will be in the heartlands. Out of 97 schools that are closing or have closed in British Columbia, 82 are in the heartlands.

           There are 82 schools closing in the heartlands communities, and the Premier's answer to these questions is: "I don't know." He says: "We have a strategy across government that will only do good things for the heartlands." Closing 80-some schools in the heartlands — is that a good strategy? Does that pass the heartlands test in terms of doing good things for the community? How is it good for the community when the children cannot access the education they need in their own community? That is what's happening on the educational front.

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

           The Chair: We're just recessing. Move recess?

           J. Kwan: Recess.

           The Chair: The committee stands recessed until 6:35 p.m.

           The committee recessed from 5:57 p.m. to 6:37 p.m.

           [G. Trumper in the chair.]

           Hon. G. Campbell: For the record, I'd just like to point out that Beth James was brought into government by order-in-council in June '01 as a director of corporate planning. She's now assistant deputy minister, corporate planning, reporting to the deputy minister to the Premier, corporate planning and restructuring. She has been responsible for the long- and short-term corporate strategic planning and performance measurement goals.

           Prior to assuming this position, she was director of corporate projects, reporting to the deputy minister to the Premier. In this role she facilitated the government's core services review, a systematic reconsideration of government programs.

           In the four years before coming to government, Beth James had several senior management positions at the University of British Columbia. In these roles she developed a new form of municipal governance for the university; developed a framework for facilities and infrastructure, fundraising and communications programs; developed and implemented a community-building process for the university community; developed a minor and major capital projects management process. She has an honours bachelor's degree in political science from the University of British Columbia and an honours master's degree in political science from the University of Western Ontario.

           That's just for the record.

           J. MacPhail: We got phone calls saying she was an executive director of special projects, a political ap-

[ Page 7071 ]

pointee that got promoted to assistant deputy minister with no competition who is now in charge of the heartlands strategy.

           While Ms. James may be a wonderful person in her own right, there is nothing in that résumé that in any way suggests anything other than that she is a political appointee with no experience in what is supposed to be the main government thrust of a heartlands strategy. She is a political appointee from beginning to end.

           We're carrying on about the heartlands strategy, and I want to talk about Prince George, which theoretically is the heartland of the heartlands. Here's what's happened to Prince George since this government has taken over power.

           The Prince George area has lost 12 government offices. Fort St. James has lost a Human Resources office. McBride lost both Forests and Transportation offices. Vanderhoof lost a courthouse and an Agriculture, Food and Fisheries office. Hudda Lake lost a corrections centre. The municipality of Prince George itself lost its Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission office, its Northern Development Commission office, Energy and Mines office, Transportation office, Sustainable Resource Management land title office and its Forest Renewal B.C. office. In total, Prince George had a net loss of 150 jobs due to government cutbacks.

           I have asked this question of ministers on several occasions, and no one could tell me whether this is the case or not. Does the heartlands strategy include any socioeconomic impacts of the changes that are being brought by government cutbacks to the heartlands?

[1840]

           Hon. G. Campbell: Obviously, as we've gone through the changes in government to bring the costs of government under control, they have had a number of impacts on people across the province. There is no question that a number of smaller communities have felt the impacts of that. As a result of that, we initiated a service delivery project which was aimed at trying to make sure that government offices were provided both effectively and cost effectively but also efficiently in communities across the province. But there's no denying the changes that have taken place, and there's no denying that the changes were required and necessary.

           J. MacPhail: Was there an economic impact study done? The very person who's doing the heartlands strategy now, Ms. James, did the core services review that led to these cuts. Was there an economic impact study done then, or is there one now on the heartlands?

           Hon. G. Campbell: It was clear from the previous decade that the government was not operating in a sustainable manner. I'm sure the member will recall reading the financial review panel's report which pointed out that government was not sustainable. Clearly, the policies that had been proceeded with in the previous decade had led to massive challenges in British Columbia. Investment was fleeing British Columbia. People were fleeing British Columbia, including the heartlands of the province.

           As the member opposite knows, we saw significant reduction in the number of jobs that were available in mining. We saw one out of two people in the mining industry lose their jobs in the heartlands. We saw thousands of people lose their jobs in the forest industry in the heartlands. We had voices across the province calling out for change in government strategy where we brought into place financial disciplines and cost disciplines.

           As we went through that exercise — the core review, as we called it — we were asking ourselves some fundamental questions. Is it essential that government provide this service? If this service is essential, how do we provide it in the most cost-effective manner? Those questions were appropriate, given the financial circumstances that we inherited from the previous government.

           Government was not sustainable. The heartlands certainly would not have survived a further increase in government expenditures while we watched as the decrease in investment and the decrease in opportunities throughout the heartlands took place. What we are doing in this government is creating a climate for investment in the province of British Columbia. Much of that investment will be taking place in the heartlands of this province.

           As I mentioned earlier before the break, when we think about what can happen and look at the opportunities that are presented in the energy industry alone, we can see literally billions of dollars of investment and thousands of new jobs — the vast majority of which will be in the heartlands of this province. When you look at the B.C. resorts strategy and recognize both the private sector investment that can come forward into that and the literally thousands of jobs that can be created out of those investments, that is critical to the heartlands of the province.

           When you look at what we're doing in the mining industry — where we've watched as exploration in mining has increased by 25 percent last year, and we're expecting a further 50 percent increase in the next year — we know that that exploration itself creates jobs. Those jobs, as we find and discover appropriate mineral resources, can lead to long-term, sustainable, high-paying jobs for people throughout the heartlands of this province.

           There is no question that the decisions that were made by the previous government to actually decimate the mining industry have cost the heartlands communities of British Columbia an awful lot of jobs and an awful lot of stability. If you want sustainable mining, you have to be sure that there's exploration. You have to be sure that you have a sensible approval process that puts in place strong environmental protections as well as encouragement for people to move forward and provide for their families. That's also critical as part of this strategy.

[1845]

           When we think about the transportation infrastructure in the province, we know that there was deterioration in the transportation infrastructure. We know

[ Page 7072 ]

there was very little investment in the transportation infrastructure. I travelled throughout the province and continue to, and people throughout the province continue to ask us for significant transportation improvements: Highway 3, Highway 97, Highway 93, Highway 95, Highway 16, Highway 1. You can't go to a part of this province that doesn't have a transportation improvement which they will tell you is critical to their community. It's critical not just because it connects resources to their customers; they're critical because they connect people to services.

           We also heard, in terms of the heartlands strategy, that we were watching as the number of physicians in rural and remote British Columbia was shrinking. So the government specifically decided that what we would do is try and create incentives, support programs and education programs to be sure that licensed practical nurses, nurses, physicians, physiotherapists and health care professionals could find not just professional reward and satisfaction in heartlands communities but also a personal support in those communities. That required a restructuring of how we thought about dealing with our physicians and our nurses and our health care professionals. We have a special training program that allows for forgiveness of their costs of tuition, the costs of people's education, if they're willing to serve in heartlands communities.

           When we looked at the opportunities that were created in tourism and we looked at the opportunities that were created in forestry, in mining, in energy, in transportation and in technology, we recognized that we had to make changes. The government has initiated a broadband strategy aimed at connecting people throughout the province, from the smallest community to the largest, to the opportunities that broadband Internet access provide for us. That was important.

           Finally, hon. Chair — at least finally for this part of the answer — we've had a first nations strategy which is aimed specifically at providing economic opportunity and building capacity for first nations. For example, we went to the northeast sector of the province, and we dealt with the Treaty 8 first nations. We talked to them about building capacity in their communities. We asked them for their suggestions for how we could improve their opportunities in terms of the energy industry. We've talked with first nations in the coastal communities. Literally dozens and dozens of economic measures have been signed between this government and first nations governments. What's important is that that clearly has a major impact on our heartlands economy throughout the province.

           We have had a strategy that deals with the social impacts as well as the economic impacts of a decade of decline in British Columbia. We are starting to see some benefits from those changes. But I would be the first to admit that it will take time for those changes to move their way through to create the type of long-term sustainability and stability that's required to build true confidence in the heartlands.

           Finally, let me say this. We are working to make sure.…

           J. MacPhail: Are you scared? Jeez, there's only so much time left. Will you make your answers shorter, please? You're filibustering. What? Are you afraid to answer the question?

           The Chair: To the Leader of the Opposition: member, would you please listen.

           J. MacPhail: He's giving the same rhetoric over and over.

           The Chair: Member, would you please extend the courtesy of listening to the answers.

           Hon. G. Campbell: I thought the member opposite would have liked to hear about the strategy that we've laid out.

           J. MacPhail: You've given that answer five times already and never once answered my question — never once.

           The Chair: Order.

           J. MacPhail: Not once.

           The Chair: The Premier has the floor.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll continue to respond to the member opposite.…

           J. MacPhail: Repeat the same answer over and over again.

           The Chair: Order.

           J. MacPhail: There are only two hours left for this government to be held accountable, and he's filibustering.

           The Chair: The Premier has the floor.

           Hon. G. Campbell: I thought the member opposite would like to hear the answer, but if she'd like to ask another question, I'm glad to hear it.

           J. MacPhail: It's because of this Premier's limitation of debate in this House that we've only got two hours left to ask him questions. He's given the same answer over and over and over again. He stands up, and it's a little tape he goes through that doesn't answer the questions. It is unbelievable that he's trying to filibuster his own estimates. What's he afraid of?

[1850]

           I asked if he'd done an economic impact study on the cuts to services. That was the question. Of course, the answer is no. This government hasn't done one economic impact study, even though when they were in opposition they claimed that it was all that was required. Well, Prince George has done an economic impact study of the cost of those jobs that they've lost —

[ Page 7073 ]

$6.65 million they will have lost to their economy. On top of that, Prince George was forced to close seven schools, and 133 teachers will lose their jobs.

           Can the Premier tell us what it is that would prevent him, in a heartlands strategy, from actually doing the hard economic work about what job cuts mean in that community? I will tell you, in the particular regional area of Prince George, there have not been any jobs created — only jobs lost. So the Premier can't stand up and say: "Oh, we're creating jobs." They haven't. It's only been jobs lost.

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: I said: why is it that there is not, as part of the heartlands strategy, an economic impact study done?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I'm going to repeat this answer. The fact of the matter is we understand what we have to do to build an economy in this province. You have to create some confidence in the province. Part of creating that confidence in the province is recognizing that the way the government was operating in the last decade was not sustainable, was costing enormously in terms of jobs and opportunities throughout British Columbia.

           J. MacPhail: Well, here's what the lack of an economic impact study means for rural British Columbia, for the great heartlands. Just the same way that they closed the 12 government offices in Prince George, they closed 14 government offices in the Cariboo. The northwest lost 14 government offices. Cranbrook region lost 16 government offices.

           The reason I bring this up is because there is no evidence — not one shred of evidence — of job growth in these communities, in these regions. In fact, the unemployment rate is increasing exponentially in these areas. As was pointed out earlier, while the government can't create jobs, they sure can eliminate jobs, and that's exactly what they've done in the heartlands. They've eliminated jobs without one shred of what that means for the economy.

           Let's ask about the tax policy of this government, then, on the heartlands. The great "tax cuts pay for themselves" promise — the biggest broken promise of this government. Let's see what the tax cuts of this provincial government did to the heartlands. Here's what it is. The average tax cut for 2002 was $714. The average tax cut for the heartlands, though, was $615, while lower mainland residents received, on average, a tax cut of $770.

           When you go beyond that, when you look at how unbalanced that is to start, here's some even more stark figures. The average tax cut in Creston was $455; in Courtenay, $525; in Keremeos, $335. That compared to a Lions Bay tax cut…. I guess that's the heartlands, though, because that's on the way to Whistler. The Lions Bay tax cut was $1,467, and in West Vancouver — which you have to pass through on your way to the heartland of Whistler — the average tax cut was $2,085.

           Did the Premier do any economic impact studies on the heartlands before he made his tax cut?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I'm going to answer this question a little differently this time. I think that we're clearly seeing one of the challenges or a difference. It's not a challenge; it's simply a difference. I'm sure the member opposite wants to make sure we have an economy that works. I've always heard her in the past talk about that. But the fact is that you can't buy jobs with government money. As difficult as it is to make those changes, as impactful as they are on individuals particularly and on the communities where those changes are made, we can't create an economy with the government simply saying: "We don't care about private sector jobs." We do.

[1855]

           It was clear to everyone that the previous government's strategy was not sustainable, it was clear to everyone that we had to encourage private sector investment, and it was clear to everyone that as we moved forward, we had to change our tax regime.

           I understand that the member opposite has had someone who's gone and aggregated some of these things. In terms of the province, what we've done is that we have the lowest base rate of personal income tax for the bottom two tax brackets. That is clearly the case. It was an important initiative for this government that we did that.

           It's an important initiative of this government that we say to people: "If you work hard in British Columbia, you can get ahead." The fact is that with income taxes particularly, paycheques do grow as the government takes less. People do make their own choices about where those dollars are going. That happens to be the position we believe in. I understand the member opposite has a different position. That's fine. People can make the choice. Would they rather send more of their dollars to government, or would they rather keep more in their paycheques? That's a legitimate choice. We asked people that in the last election, and I think people made that choice.

           Ultimately, those tax cuts will pay for themselves, as we said. We didn't claim those tax cuts would pay for themselves in a week and a half or a year and a half. We said we would have the budget balanced by the third complete budget this government presented, and we will have the budget balanced by the third complete budget this government presents. The fact is almost $900 million has been left in the pockets of individual taxpayers in British Columbia. They choose where they put their dollars. It is not the government's money. They choose how they use those resources they earn.

           We face a number of changes in government. We're going to continue to face those changes. There is a difference between the member opposite and this government. We believe the larger people's paycheques are, the better off those people are. We believe the way to create jobs is for the private sector to create jobs. There are not enough dollars in the public coffers for us

[ Page 7074 ]

to make sure that all British Columbians have a job. There is enough for us to create an environment that encourages private sector job creation. That's what we're doing.

           J. MacPhail: Boy, I'll tell you, I actually thought we were going to have a better discussion on this. The government has been so proud of its heartlands strategy, and all we get is rhetoric.

           I just showed the statistics to show that by this government's tax cut policy, the heartlands have been harmed. The Premier stands up and says: "I left $900 million in the pockets of British Columbians." Yeah, rich people still have their tax cut — rich people in West Vancouver and Lions Bay, not in Creston, not in Courtenay and not in Prince Rupert. In fact, if you earned $80,000 or less, you've had your tax cut clawed back completely. It's nice that there's $900 million left in the pockets of the wealthy, but it ain't for ordinary middle-income British Columbians who are in the heartlands.

           Madam Chair, it is with a sense of frustration that I am going to move to some very specific issues so that I can get specific answers. The next topic I wish to talk about is gaming. I want to quote this to the Premier. April 19, 1999. "I have a positive and constructive suggestion for the minister responsible for gambling: stop the expansion of gambling today." That was the Premier when he was the Leader of the Opposition.

           What's happening with gaming policy as of today?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General would be glad to deal with this in detail. However, let me say that our policy on gaming is that we have set up B.C. Lottery Corporation, as many other Crown corporations, to run that corporation in an effective manner, in a business-wise manner, and that's exactly what they're doing.

           J. MacPhail: It was this Premier that wrote the New Era document, so let me remind him of promise 4: "No expansion of gambling. Stop the expansion of gambling that has increased gambling addiction and put new strains on families." Has there been any expansion of gambling?

[1900]

           Hon. G. Campbell: As the member opposite knows, there were a number of legal obligations that the government had to meet. We met those. We announced those, I believe, in January of 2002, and there has been no expansion of gaming since that time. What has happened is that we have said to the B.C. Lottery Corporation that they should look at that envelope, if you want, and they should then maximize the benefits to the people of the province.

           J. MacPhail: Boy, I'll tell you. Isn't it interesting what the Premier — the then Leader of the Opposition — said in 1999? "I have a positive and constructive suggestion for the minister responsible for gambling: stop the expansion of gambling today."

           He knew full well about contracts. He knew full well he was going to choose to break some contracts — just the contracts that applied to working people. But in other circumstances, even though a contract hadn't been signed, there was a commitment to a contract when it came to gaming, and this Premier thought, when he came into office, he needed to honour those contracts.

           Did the corporation announce an expansion of gaming today?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I have no idea.

           J. MacPhail: Well, isn't that convenient? Isn't it absolutely convenient that the Premier in charge, who made such a big deal about no expansion of gaming, is now so desperate for cash that he stands up today and doesn't know what's going on?

           Isn't it also interesting that when they wanted to do their big show about gambling in January of 2002, that was part of an open cabinet presentation? Big presentation — one of those infomercials. But today, when the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General…. Oh no, I'm sorry. It was the ministry staff. When they announced an expansion of gambling, it was done by ministry staff. No big presentation.

           Well, there has been an expansion of slots allowed, and the 300-slot cap has been removed by government policy and the number of slots for the whole province increased. Is that an expansion of gambling?

           Hon. G. Campbell: We were very clear that the framework for gaming in British Columbia would be what it was in January of 2002. We have said to the B.C. Lottery Corporation: "Manage that resource so that the optimal benefit is there for British Columbians."

           J. MacPhail: Oh, another broken promise. We were up to 25 major broken promises, so we'll have to rewrite our book just a week later to say that now there are 26 broken promises.

           Even given the fact that the policy that was announced in January of 2002 was a broken promise under the auspices of this government having to meet legal obligations of potential contracts for gaming casinos, even though they broke all sorts of other…. They broke the WOF contract, they broke the HEU contract, and they broke the BCTF contract. But for the gaming casinos there was a possibility of a contract, so they had to abide by that.

           But even given that, let's say January 2002 is just the mini-crack in the broken promise. This is what the government announced in 2002: "Destination casinos. There are two…." Wait a second. It says: "If built, each of the…." And they weren't built. In fact, the RFP hadn't even gone out on some of these casinos, but this Premier felt it necessary to continue: "If built, there would be 17 casinos that each may have a maximum of 300 slot machines."

           Okay. Well, even if they were all built, which would be new under this government already — an expansion

[ Page 7075 ]

— and they each were given 300 slot machines — and some of them don't have slot machines, because Vancouver, as you will know, members, doesn't permit slot machines — that would mean a maximum throughout the entire province, if every casino used every single one of its slot machines, of 5,100. Well, today the ministry staff said…. And by the way, Vancouver doesn't have slot machines and theoretically never will, I guess. I don't know. That now is up to 5,400 slot machines. That was announced today. And the slot cap has been removed.

           So there's the change in the gaming policy. It's called expansion. No matter which way you look at it, it's expansion of gaming, so broken promise No. 26 — major broken promise No. 26, on gaming.

[1905]

           Not only have they not stopped the expansion of gambling, not only have they done that, but they've expanded it. Then they've removed the caps, which, of course, means some communities will be able to have hundreds more slot machines per casino. What does the Premier say about that in terms of the promise that says gambling addiction puts new strains on families?

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, I should tell the member opposite that I would think she would be one of the first to stand in this House and tell us we should meet our legal obligations when it comes to gaming. It isn't like the last government had an infallible record when it came to gaming. I seem to recall things like NCHS and some other challenges that they faced.

           This government took a different approach. We said at the outset, in January 2001, that this is the framework for gaming. We will not be expanding beyond that. We have said to B.C. Lottery that it's their job — in fact, their obligation — to optimize the benefits of that, and that's what they're doing. We have to operate that business, like other businesses in this province, in a professional manner. That's what they're doing.

           There is no question that we did face some legal obligations, and we met them. I believe that's what British Columbians expected us to do. As we looked at what the challenges were that we faced with regard to gaming, we looked at the applications that came in, looked at the legal obligations that we had. We had reviews from the Attorney General ministry with regard to that, and we made choices. We set that framework for choice, and we said: "This is what we're going to do in the province. We won't be expanding beyond this."

           We said to the B.C. Lottery Corporation: "You deal with this and optimize the benefits to the people of British Columbia, and we'll remove the politicians from those decisions." Again, candidly, I would think the member opposite understands why politicians have been removed from that decision, given the record of her government with regard to this file.

           J. MacPhail: Waffle, waffle, waffle. A broken promise is a broken promise. This government is expanding gaming, and they're removing the caps on slots per casino. Can the Premier tell me, given his new-era promise of saying that there are increasing strains on families as a result of gaming: what does the removal of the cap on slots per community do to the increased strain on gaming, and what resources is he providing for that?

           Hon. G. Campbell: If I can, I'll try it with a short answer. We are staying within the existing capacity of gaming, as we said, that was established earlier. We don't believe that existing capacity creates any additional strains. Clearly, what we want to do is create an economy that is based on winners. We want an economy that encourages investment. We want an economy that makes sure we can move forward so that people don't, in fact, tax themselves through gaming.

           Having said that, there is a B.C. Lottery Corporation. It does make a contribution to the government. It does make a contribution to some of our public services. We are not expanding it. We are not expanding gaming. We are saying: let's do things within that framework. On top of that, we have doubled the resources that are available for people who have a gaming problem, because we recognize that we do have to try and make sure we can deal with that problem in a positive and constructive way.

           We are staying within the framework. We are not expanding outside. We have disconnected political interference from that framework, which is something we thought was important to do, given the last government's record, and we've doubled the funding for problem gaming.

           J. MacPhail: I guess the Premier thinks that if he repeats often enough that he hasn't expanded gaming, people will believe him. There is going to be an allowance of 5,400 slots in this province now, and communities can have…. There will be no limit on the number of slots per casino. In fact, it is an expansion of the number of slots, if indeed the Solicitor General's presentation on January 15, 2002, is telling the truth. I have it right here.

[1910]

           Now, I guess we wouldn't actually want the changed policy to have the same light shone on it that it did when the government made the big presentation. But no matter what this government wants to suggest, they are desperate for money, and there has been an expansion of gaming.

           Could the Premier tell me: having 600 slots in a community or 900 slots in a community doesn't add any extra pressure to a community — is that what I just heard? — and therefore there's no need to address that issue.

           Hon. G. Campbell: I just explained to the member opposite, and she's not going to like this, because I explained it before. We're staying within the existing capacity. We have doubled the dollars that are available for people with gaming problems.

           J. MacPhail: Tell me — through you, Madam Chair — about that doubling of funds for gaming addictions.

[ Page 7076 ]

How will it be assigned, given the new policy announced today?

           [R. Stewart in the chair.]

           Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me say that we are dealing with…. When we doubled the funds for problem gamers, we established a number of programs that would deal with that.

           First of all, we wanted to be sure the provincial line was in place for problem gamers. We also have a program where people can be excluded from casinos. If they voluntarily join that program, they can sign into that program and make sure that happens.

           It's not a question of assigning it to one community or the next. It's a program that's available for any gaming that's taking place in the province, and it meets the needs of the individual people that have challenges. We try to identify those people early on. We try to identify them and deal with them at the casino door, if you want, and we also provide for voluntary access to programs of support.

           J. MacPhail: There's no change as a result of today's announcement, then. A community that has maybe tripled the number of slots or has slots that they never had before…. There's no rethinking of the gaming addiction funds? Would the Premier tell me how much those funds are?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I do not have that information, but I'm sure the member opposite can get it, and I'm glad to get it for the member opposite.

           J. MacPhail: Well, I guess the Premier will be doing…. I'm sure there will be a big presentation at the open cabinet meeting about this new gaming policy now and about how there's going to be a minimum of 5 percent more slots in the province — a minimum. Maybe 5 percent isn't an expansion. You're right. I mean, given the way they do math over there, I guess a 5 percent expansion…. What is that — plus or minus? Within the realm of error? So that's why? It's an expansion, no matter what.

           It's so funny. It's true. With the small opposition and the Liberal MLAs not standing up and holding their own government to account for their promises, you're right: the government gets away with this kind of stuff. It does get away with it. But we'll ask the questions, and no matter how the Premier dodges and tries not to answer them, it will come to light. I look forward very much to the open cabinet presentation on the change in gaming that was snuck through today by ministry staff, which was announced by ministry staff today. Isn't that interesting?

           I'm going to have to move on, because we've got about ten other items we need to discuss with the Premier.

           The Citizens' Assembly. He made a commitment to voter registration prior to the choosing of the Citizens' Assembly. Can he update us on that?

[1915]

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me just simply respond to the earlier comments from the member opposite. This government actually…. If you look at what the previous government had undertaken to provide for casino operators, etc., there would have been a significantly larger amount of gaming in this province. We contained and controlled that. We have also provided additional resources for people who have problems.

           Interjection.

           The Chair: Order, please.

           Hon. G. Campbell: It is important to note that although the member opposite and her government wouldn't agree with this, we have removed political interference from the B.C. Lottery Corp because we believe that is something that led to substantial problems. I think it's important to note there are differences between this government's approach and the previous government's approach, and I'm glad to examine those differences for British Columbians.

           In terms of the Citizens' Assembly, as the member opposite knows…. Actually, she's been more involved with it than I have since it was announced. She sits on the committee with the Legislature. Mr. Blaney has actually had a chance to meet with her.

           Clearly, one of the things that we are looking at doing is upgrading the voters list so that people have an opportunity to participate fully in the Citizens' Assembly. That's the purpose of the exercise. It's important, I think, for us to move forward on that. I can't give details on that, because it's under the auspices of the Attorney General, who is coordinating that with Mr. Blaney and with Elections B.C.

           J. MacPhail: It was the Premier that made the commitment to do the voter registration. Or am I mistaken? During the debate on establishing the Citizens' Assembly, the government had made no commitment to Mr. Gibson's recommendation to do voter registration prior to selection of the participants on the Citizens' Assembly.

           The Premier, in his response in this House to that motion, made a commitment to voter registration. I was listening very carefully because it was one of the questions I had. It was a personal commitment of the Premier. I'm asking him about that personal commitment because it's a $684,000 item, as we learned today.

           Hon. G. Campbell: The Premier made that commitment on behalf of the government, and it's under the auspices of the Attorney General.

           J. MacPhail: Yes, but is it going ahead?

           Hon. G. Campbell: As far as I know.

           J. MacPhail: When would we know? When would the Premier know? Is it hands off after he makes a

[ Page 7077 ]

commitment like that in the House? We know it's going to cost $684,000. This is actually something that I agree with, but it's a big item.

           Elections B.C. doesn't have the money in its budget. The Attorney General didn't have money in his budget for the Citizens' Assembly. He was about 2.2 million bucks short but said he was going to find it. That was not including the voter registration.

           Despite the fact that it wasn't budgeted for either by the Attorney General or in Elections B.C., the Premier is now committing to spending that money on voter registration. Is that correct?

           Hon. G. Campbell: We are certainly going to make sure that we enhance the voters lists and give everybody an opportunity to see it. I have not seen the report of the chief electoral officer. I have not been part of the legislative committee. We are committed to making sure that British Columbians have an opportunity to participate in the Citizens' Assembly. That's why we have done it.

           I am sure I will receive a report. I am sure it will come to government, and we will have an opportunity to make a decision on that. We want to make sure that the voters list gives people the opportunity to sign up so they have the opportunity to participate in the Citizens' Assembly.

           J. MacPhail: Well, I'm happy to give the Premier the information then, seeing as how I am more in the loop than he is, even though it was his promise. It's $684,000 to do the voter registration — the cheapest method to do the voter registration. Elections B.C. has done an excellent job of minimizing costs, and so far that isn't in anybody's budget. I would assume that given the Premier's commitment in this Legislature — I'd be happy to read it back to him — that money will be found.

           I would really hope that it's not by cutting somewhere else, not by taking money out of the pockets of poor kids or cutting further on environmental protection, because God knows the Premier thinks the promise of saying that tax cuts pay for themselves is the same as a promise of balancing the budget. Wrong.

[1920]

           In fact, over and over again the Minister of Finance was told that he couldn't balance his budget by saying that tax cuts would pay for themselves and that he would have to cut services. "Oh no," he said. I can remember it was like yesterday on BCTV at noon hour debate during the election, when that very question was put to the now Minister of Finance. You cannot in any way do anything other than cut public services when you give a tax cut, because tax cuts don't pay for themselves in a fiscal cycle in a way that allows for anything other than budget cuts.

           Here's the Premier saying, when I ask him about tax cuts: "Of course we kept our promise. We're going to balance the budget." They're balancing the budget by cutting services to children and families, by closing schools as we saw in the heartlands, by shutting down hospitals and by forcing people who used to have a residential care bed fully funded to now have to pay for it out of their own pocket in a privatized model — assisted living. It's assisted living as long as you've got a couple thousand a month to pay out of your pocket, which you didn't have to pay before. So $684,000 is a lot of money, and I'm just hoping the Premier isn't going to have to deliver on his promise by cutting more.

           What meetings has the Premier himself had over the last 12 or 14 months with CN?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The only time I can recall meeting with CN would have been in December of last year, I think it was. We had a conference of northern mayors, of various proponents for improving rail service and various customers for rail in Prince George.

           J. MacPhail: Did the Premier meet with CN anytime in Montreal recently, in the last 14 months or so?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Not that I can recall. They may have been in attendance at an Olympic meeting that we went to for lunch, where I went to talk with people. I don't recall CN being there specifically, though.

           J. MacPhail: A longtime Liberal Party fundraiser is Patrick Kinsella. He is the lobbyist for CN. Has the Premier or any of his ministers met with Mr. Kinsella and representatives of CN?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have an answer for that. As the member opposite knows, if she wants to know about specific meeting times with either myself or the minister, she can do that through freedom of information.

           J. MacPhail: My gosh, I didn't think he would refer me to that, because I'm going to get into freedom of information and this government's record on that.

           Just to be clear, then — I'm happy to have the information stand as wrong — the Premier did not meet with Paul Tellier or David McLean to discuss the purchase with CN and at that time discuss the purchase of B.C. Rail?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Not recently, certainly. I know I've met with Paul Tellier in the past, but I can't tell you how long ago that was, to be candid.

           J. MacPhail: Then let's not put a time frame on it. Since the Premier has been Premier, has he met with Paul Tellier and/or David McLean where they discussed the sale of B.C. Rail?

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, we're not selling B.C. Rail. Secondly, I can't recall, but if the member opposite would like me to discover when I've met with either of those gentlemen, I'm glad to do that. Mr. Tellier is no longer with CN; he's now with Bombardier, as I understand it.

           My offices are open to anyone who wants to come and talk to me about what they see as the potential

[ Page 7078 ]

future for British Columbia and how they can improve services. They're always open for those sorts of discussions. I candidly don't recall any specific times when we've met on that specific subject.

[1925]

           J. MacPhail: It's irrelevant that Mr. Tellier is no longer CN president. He has been CN president well within the time frame of this government's plans to sell B.C. Rail.

           Yes, I would like that information — and I would like it in an expeditious fashion, please — about what meetings, since becoming Premier, the Premier has had with Paul Tellier and/or David McLean to discuss matters related to rail in this province. That's exactly what I would like.

           Now then, let's talk about freedom of information and how it's working under this government. For the very first time, I will tell you, under the freedom-of-information law the opposition gets asked to pay for freedom of information on a regular and consistent basis — on a regular and consistent basis. In fact, never was the then opposition caucus ever asked to pay.

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: Simply not true. Simply not true, because we've been told it's a change in policy. The Minister of Finance, always such a great assistant with his yap, yap, yap, can….

           Hon. G. Collins: I'll show you.

           J. MacPhail: Go and prove that, then. Go and prove it. Go and prove that the then opposition, who used up at least 20 percent of freedom-of-information requests, had to pay for them.

           Let me just tell you of the problems of freedom of information under this government. An example. The Premier says: "Oh, she can get that through freedom of information." Let's see how easy that is. Here are a couple of examples of the problems that we and many others face in getting timely information from the government from freedom of information. This government always makes the claim that they're the most open and transparent government anywhere, so here's an example.

           On September 12 of last year — that would be 2002, eight months ago — we requested under freedom of information records relating to the development of the aquaculture regulation. The request was made to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. The ministry responded that the records should be available by October 25, 2002. On September 26 we were informed by the ministry that due to the large amount of records, a fee of $769 was to be charged. That would go along with the fact that we're denied official opposition status.

           We appealed this fee, and it was waived. The request was again going through the system, with the 30-day clock restarted. On December 11 we were told: "A preliminary review of the records you have requested indicates that the interests of another public body may be affected by disclosure of the information you have requested. Consultation with the other public body is necessary before we can fully process your request. Your records should be available by February 10, 2003."

           Well, another public body. We asked: "Who was that other public body that needed to be consulted?" It was the office of the Premier. So when did the office of the Premier finally get through with its review of the records? Just a coincidence, but today. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

           Can the Premier, who has referred me to freedom of information, explain why it took his office over five months to complete a review of these records?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Well, no. I can't deal with this specific because I don't know about it. I can tell you that we get many, many freedom-of-information requests. We try to follow them up as expeditiously, as professionally and as legally as possible so that we're protecting the rights of others, as we're supposed to under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

           I'm perfectly glad to hear from the member opposite how she believes we can improve the system. I can tell you that when I was in opposition, we were consistently asked — often asked — to pay for the freedom-of-information requests we made. Oftentimes we couldn't pursue them because the price was higher than we were willing to do.

           These are costs to government. They're not costs to me personally. They are costs to the citizens of British Columbia. We try and keep those costs as reasonable as possible. We try and expedite requests as quickly and as professionally as possible.

[1930]

           J. MacPhail: Well, even if we concede the point — and I want proof of this, actually, that the opposition was charged — for this government, when it was in opposition and made note to the various bodies that they were the official opposition, charges were automatically waived. They didn't have to appeal. That might be just a little sidebar that the Premier's denial of official opposition gets us. Maybe that's it. Maybe it's his denial of official opposition status, which he announced with glee on his opening caucus day. Maybe that's the consequence we have to pay, or get charged and have to appeal decisions under FOI rather than just having them automatically waived.

           But why five months? What is the FOI process in his office?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I can't speak specifically to this particular item. I can tell you that we do have obligations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We do review for cabinet confidentiality. We do review for third-party confidentiality, as we are supposed to. I believe it's section 12 under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

 [ Page 7079 ]

           This is an important issue. I want to say to the member opposite that I recognize it's an important issue. I also want to say to the member opposite that she can say as often as she likes that we didn't have to pay, but we had to pay when we were in opposition. The issue, though, is: how do we improve the quality of the system and the quality of the service? The legislative committee will be reviewing this matter. It's an opportunity, I think, for the opposition to come forward with their recommendations, and those recommendations will be made to the House.

           J. MacPhail: I'm actually asking specific questions about what goes on in his office that takes five months. What is the process?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite was in cabinet and would have gone through exactly the same process that we do now. The cabinet secretary is responsible for reviewing requests for freedom of information. It's received. If there's a huge number of documents — and, again, I don't know about this specific request that the member opposite is referring to — and there's a great deal of work to be done, the time is taken to do that work. I don't know how to answer it other than that.

           The cabinet secretary has been responsible for this in the past. There was no change in that. There has been no change in the process that I'm aware of since the election in 2001.

           J. MacPhail: Well, let's see. Who in your office signs off on FOI requests sent to it for review?

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, Mr. Chair, just so that you know, I have a December 1999 release here that points out that David Loukidelis, who at that time was the information and privacy commissioner and still is, denied the request from our caucus that we set aside a fee charged by the Ministry of Children and Families. The charge is $329. Clearly, we were still paying in those days, as the opposition is today.

           Secondly, requests come in. They go to the cabinet secretary, who at this point is Joy Illington. Ms. Illington reviews those requests. She reviews them with the Attorney General and with other agencies of government to ensure that we are living within the law under section 12.

[1935]

           J. MacPhail: What role does Martyn Brown play?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I believe that Joy Illington works directly on her own. She may come down and deal with Mr. Dobell as deputy minister on occasion. I can't say whether she requests information from Mr. Brown or not.

           J. MacPhail: I am told that Mr. Brown is involved in the process. I'd like the Premier to check on that and get back to me. Our information is that Mr. Brown goes through every FOI request.

           Now, a similar situation exists with our request for records around the development of the e-government portal. We wanted that information so we could discuss it with the Premier in his estimates today. The request was made in December, and we're still waiting for full release. When do you think we might get that? When does the Premier think we might get that? Sorry, Mr. Chair.

           Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not aware of the request. I am glad to follow that up and get it back to the member.

           J. MacPhail: Okay, how about this one? When the government launched its Picture of Health, a request for the cost was sent to the public affairs bureau, who reports to the Premier. No problem, they said. Records by April 1. Still no records. When would the Premier think we'd be getting that request?

           Hon. G. Campbell: We could probably cut this short. I don't have an answer on any of these specific details. I'm glad to follow it up. I know that the Public Accounts Committee will receive finalized versions of the accounts in June of this year. I know the member opposite is the Chair of Public Accounts. All that information will be available at that time at any rate, I would expect.

           J. MacPhail: Great, but the Premier's estimates are now. We've got less than an hour and a half left, and I can't ask my questions that I would have had from that freedom-of-information request made in December around the e-government portal when the Premier was still responsible for it. It doesn't produce much good, does it?

           Well, here's one about B.C. Rail. The B.C. Federation of Labour has been advised that its request under FOI for materials relating to the sale of B.C. Rail and the relationship with the office of the Premier…. That request has been in for over five weeks now, and they were told that the response wouldn't come in until July 7. It's directly to the Premier. Does the Premier have any estimate on when that information would be available?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I understand the question is that the member opposite's been told that there will be information available on July 7. I can't say that it won't be available on July 7. If that's what the member opposite's been told, then that's when I assume that request will be met.

           I also am aware that B.C. Rail was excluded from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act by the previous government. I don't know what the challenges are there. The reason that we actually have a formal process to go through, which includes Ms. Illington, is to make sure that the legal obligations of government are fully met.

           J. Kwan: Just to follow up on the requests for information about who else deals with freedom-of-

[ Page 7080 ]

information items in the Premier's office. If Martyn Brown is not involved, could the minister also provide information on who else is involved aside from Ms. Joy Illington?

           Moving on to another area. The opposition, of course, is forced in this tight time frame to canvass many areas with the Premier. As my colleague has said, we have less than an hour and a half to go. We have many areas where we want to ask questions of the Premier, so we have to move through these items very expeditiously. That is not to say that we don't have further questions. We simply don't have the time to ask further questions in each of the areas that my colleague has already canvassed.

[1940]

           I'd like to touch on the issues around the independent officers and particularly the impacts on budget cuts in these offices. For the auditor general in the year 2002-03, the office budget is about $8.3 million. In '03-04 it's $7.9 million, and then in '04-05 it's $7 million. Elections B.C.: $8.5 million approximately; '03-04, $7 million, '04-05, $5.5 million. Information and privacy: $2.3 million in '02-03;'03-04, $1.8 million; '04-05, $1.5 million. Ombudsman's office: $4.7 million in '02-03; '03-04, $4 million; '04-05, $3 million. Police complaints commissioner's office: $1.1 million in '02-03; '03-04, $985,000; '04-05, $811,000.

           In the past the Premier has said this. "Independent officers are public servants too. I think it's important for everyone to have a look at their organization, whether it's an independent office of the Legislature or a major industry and say: 'Are we doing things as cost effectively as we can?' When you hear, 'Well, gee, no, we can't change; we are different,' I think everyone's eyebrows go up. Everyone is expected to change and come back and tell us if they've got real problems." This is what the Premier used to say when he was the opposition leader.

           Under the new-era promise, here's what the Premier had to say: "Increase funding for the auditor general's office, to help identify and prevent waste and to increase value for money…. Establish service plans that include measurable performance standards and targets for all programs that are annually audited and published, for all taxpayers to see."

           Now, when you compare jurisdictionally, because I know that the Premier is very fond of Alberta, Ralph Klein and their administration…. Let me just do some comparison here with Alberta. Alberta increased the budget of the auditor general by 12 percent for '03-04. This increases a budget that's $3.5 million larger than B.C.'s, despite a population three-quarters the size of B.C.'s.

           Saskatchewan, with a population of one million — a quarter the size of B.C. — allocates $5.4 million to its auditor general. This allocation rises over the next two years, while B.C.'s shrinks. Therefore, within two or three years the budgets of the auditors general of B.C. and Saskatchewan will be similar.

           Just to quickly recap, cuts in '02-03 of $8.36 million; in '03-04, $7.9 million, which is about a 6 percent cut; and then in '04-05, $7 million — a 16 percent cut. Why did the government cut the budget of the auditor general's office?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Well, as the member opposite knows, the auditor general came to the Public Accounts Committee, which they report to. The Public Accounts Committee reviewed the budget of the auditor general. The auditor general, like other agencies of government, has got to look for cost savings. I believe the committee also said to the auditor general that if he wanted to come back and convince them that he should have a different budget, he could do that.

           The auditor general is clearly under the same disciplines as we would apply on the rest of government, and it's important for us to remember that as we move forward. Independent officers of the Legislature are also public servants. Our public costs are higher than they should be, so we have to find ways of delivering services more cost effectively. That's what we're trying to do, and that's what independent officers of the Legislature are trying to do as well.

           J. Kwan: First, just a couple of facts. The auditor general actually did not appear in front of the Public Accounts Committee with his budget for approval or even for recommendation to government. In fact, I argued that the auditor general's office should, by the way, come forward with their budget to the Public Accounts Committee for it to be reviewed and discussed there and recommendations made to government.

           That is not the case. In fact, the committee that looked at the auditor general's budget is the Finance Committee, which is chaired by a government member, not by an opposition member. By the way, the auditor general did go back to the Finance Committee to ask for more money and resources to do their work, and they were turned down. He was turned down. The office was turned down. This is just by way of some facts and history for the Premier.

[1945]

           The Premier used to say — and I quote from the New Era document — that a B.C. Liberal government will "increase funding for the auditor general's office." So why after all of this — the government's rhetoric about good government, the issue around accountability and transparency — is it cutting the budget for the auditor general's office?

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, I appreciate the member opposite correcting me on that. Secondly, we did increase funding to the auditor general's office. Thirdly, we did look at the costs of government. We did feel that the auditor general, like other members of the public service, should look for more cost-effective ways of delivering service. I stand to be corrected, but I understood that the Finance Committee said to the auditor general: "You may come back and request additional funds."

           My understanding was that he did do that, but my understanding is that the legislative committee actually

[ Page 7081 ]

decided to move forward with the budget that he had. You know, we can decide we want legislative committees, or we can decide we don't. We want legislative committees. We think legislative committees are capable of making those decisions. The committee did make that decision.

           J. Kwan: That is exactly the point. The auditor general went to the committee and asked for more dollars and more resources to do his work. And you know what? It was turned down by the majority of the government that forms the committee. For the Premier to say we've got to find efficiencies, on the one hand, and then on the other hand for him to have gone out and campaigned on the notion that the auditor general's office should have its funding increased so it could actually be the watchdog it is supposed to be and to make sure it is holding this government accountable…. What's changed?

           Oh, an election. Maybe that's what has changed. The Premier is now the Premier, no longer the opposition leader. Therefore, budget cuts need to take place. You know what? For the Premier to say that the auditor general's office received a funding increase, it was a one-time funding increase, and then the government took it back. Here's the pattern of the dollars that have been assigned to the auditor general's office: '02-03, $8.364 million; '03-04, $7.901 million; '04-05, $7.069 million.

           Maybe the Premier can tell me how those numbers, as they go down, not up, are actually an increase in funding. Maybe we have a problem once again with math. Well, actually, it's not even math 101. It's more like kindergarten math, where the numbers are going up or going down. It's pretty easy to tell. Actually, the resources have gone down. On that basis, these are the facts. These are the facts, and they're not refutable. What services will the auditor general no longer be able to provide?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Obviously, hon. Chair, I can't answer that question specifically. I would assume that was one of the discussions that was had in the Finance Committee of the Legislature when the auditor general came forward with his suggestions and it was discussed in the Legislature. Clearly, the scale of the financial problem that this government inherited from the previous government was significant. Clearly, all members of government — the officers of the Legislature as well as others — have got to be able to deliver their services in a cost-effective way.

           That's clearly what we are endeavouring to do with regard to all the officers of the Legislature, including the auditor general, so let me start by recognizing that the auditor general is being asked to perform what many others are. I don't do the percentage reductions that the member opposite has suggested, but there are many businesses in this province that have had to cut back on their overhead costs, and that have had to find new and more effective ways of delivering services, and I think government should be up to that challenge as well.

           I believe, actually, that the auditor general's office, in view of the work that this government has done with the transparency and ministerial accountability act, with moving to generally accepted accounting principles…. That is a major undertaking the auditor general has been working with us on. All of those things are very important as we move forward and open up the public accounts so that the opposition will know what the status of our books are prior to an election, unlike this government when we look at it….

[1950]

           The budget for the auditor general went from $7.845 million in 2000-01 to $9.317 in '01-02 to $9.564 million in '02-03 to $9.81 million in 2003-04. That's a significant increase from 2000-01 to 2003-04. It is not unusual for us to say to the auditor general, "Please make sure you contain your costs," as we are saying to others as well.

           J. Kwan: Those numbers that the Premier quoted are wrong. My staff, who are observing the debate…. I would ask them to please send up the budget books, because I know those numbers are wrong. I have them here in the binder, but I want to show it out of the blue book so there is no mistake about it.

           Let me answer the question for the Premier. He says he doesn't know what the impacts would be when the budget is being decreased for the auditor general's office. The auditor general, from what I understand, because of the budget cuts can no longer carry out his role effectively. By cutting the budget of the independent officers, government rightly or wrongly looks as though it's willing to shut down any form of opposition. Already, as it is, there are only two opposition members. Now the government wants to actually reduce the resources for independent officers of the Legislature whose role is to ensure that government is working effectively, efficiently, and to be that watchdog in that realm.

           The auditor general is relying upon the government. The government can give the office more money if it likes the reports. Then it can take it away if it doesn't like the reports. The perception of independence, however, in my view, erodes.

           [J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

           Now, it's interesting, because you have to ask the question: what has changed prior to the election and after the election? I will quote the Premier: "Increase funding for the auditor general's office, to help identify and prevent waste, and to increase value for money." This is what he said. There's no mistake about it. What has changed from when he said it prior to the election and now?

           I'll tell you what has changed. Now the opposition leader is the Premier, and perhaps what has changed is that he really doesn't want accountability. He wants to limit anybody who will observe and watch closely what this government is doing at every turn. Never mind for the colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, the opposition leader, and myself, who are trying to hold this government accountable, because what this gov-

[ Page 7082 ]

ernment is doing is shutting down debate. They will ram legislation through, ram estimates through and shut down debate. That is what they would like to do.

           I actually now have the blue books. Thank you very much to our staff, who sent up the blue books. Here's the auditor general's estimate dollars printed in the blue book — estimates, fiscal year ending March 31, 2004, from the Ministry of Finance. Auditor general: '02-03, $8.364 million; '03-04, $7.901 million. So my numbers, after all, are not mistaken. If you turn the pages and look for '04-05, it is at $7.069 million. So my numbers are correct. The Premier's numbers are incorrect. If he thought that he had increased the auditor general's budget, well then, it's not too late. We can amend it. We'll be looking forward to that motion right now, today or tomorrow. There is still time.

           I want to move on to another area, because time is running out. We now have an hour and five minutes to do many other areas, and I want to move to another independent officer's area — questions on the cuts to the office of the ombudsman: '02-03, $4.77 million; '03-04, $4.05 million — a 15 percent cut; '04-05, $3.09 million — a 35 percent cut.

           I have a couple of questions regarding the cuts to the independent officers of the House. Firstly, I would like to discuss the office of the ombudsman. The Finance and Government Services Committee watched as independent officer after independent officer testified on the effects of cutting their budget. Now, I read this from Hansard.

[1955]

           I understand that it is human nature to protect what you have and that the budget cuts to independent officers are part of a governmentwide scheme. However, cuts to these bodies come at a time when government is devolving more authority to local and regional organizations. My question, then, is in regard to the office of the ombudsman. Did your office, prior to these cuts, carry out an assessment of its potential shortcomings?

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, if I can go back to the auditor general for a second. The auditor general's gross budget is as I reported it. The auditor general gets recoveries from that budget of roughly $1.2 million. That leads to the net budget you see recorded in the blue book. Indeed, the budget for the auditor general is up from 2000-01, as I said. Further, as we have worked with the auditor general in establishing generally accepted accounting principles for the government, we have worked with the auditor….

           J. MacPhail: I guess he's a liar, then — the auditor general — eh?

           The Chair: Member, that sort of language is inappropriate for this House. I'd ask you to withdraw that, please.

           Interjections.

           The Chair: Member, I'd ask you to withdraw that statement, please.

           J. MacPhail: What statement is it you would like me to withdraw, Mr. Chair?

           The Chair: Member, you commented that there was a lie.

           J. MacPhail: Well, the Premier's challenging the auditor general's numbers, so I guess the Premier's saying…. Let me correct that, then, Mr. Chair. I guess the Premier's saying that the auditor general is incorrect.

           The Chair: Member, I'm asking you to withdraw the statement, please.

           J. MacPhail: I withdraw that, and I rephrase it. I guess the Premier is saying the auditor general isn't being accurate in saying what his budget is.

           The Chair: Thank you.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Let me be clear what I'm saying. The auditor general has a budget. That budget, for example, in 2003-04 is $9.801 million. There is $1.2 million in recoveries that the auditor general receives, which means that the net budget for the blue book which the member opposite was referring to is $7.9 million. Nevertheless, that is a significant increase over 2000-01.

           J. MacPhail: You made a promise in your New Era document. You were elected in May of 2001.

           The Chair: Order, please. Leader of the Opposition, let's hear the answer.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Further, the auditor general has been working, as you know, with the government to modernize the Auditor General Act. The Auditor General Act confirms the independence of the auditor general and moves British Columbia toward auditing practices that are in the forefront of Canada. All of those things are important as we move forward.

           It's important, I think, to also recognize that by moving to generally accepted accounting principles, we are indeed creating the kind of openness that is essential so that people who are elected and come to government aren't surprised, as this one was, immediately following an election. We weren't surprised that the last government was not telling the public the truth; we were surprised at the extent and the depth of the financial difficulties we were in.

           Having said that, in terms of the ombudsman, we recognize that the ombudsman does excellent work for the province and the people of British Columbia. Again, as with other independent officers, it's essential that the ombudsman look at ways that the ombudsman can provide those services that are cost-effective to meet the needs of citizens.

           J. Kwan: The Premier didn't actually answer my question. And what has happened, aside from reducing

[ Page 7083 ]

the ombudsman's office budget, is that the Premier actually increased the work for the ombudsman's office.

           The position for the child and youth advocate was eliminated, and the Liberal MLAs, the government, actually said the ombudsman's office could pick that work up. So here's what you have. You have fewer resources for the ombudsman's office to do its work, and then you have more work to do. Then the Premier says: "Don't worry. Everything will be fine."

           Let me ask the Premier this question: what services will the ombudsman no longer be able to carry out? If he thinks everything is fine, then he should know what services they can and cannot do.

           Hon. G. Campbell: I am not the reviewer of the ombudsman's budget. I've not been privy. The ombudsman has not talked to me about the challenges he may or may not face. I am sure the ombudsman is capable, as other people are, of delivering the services the government requests of them.

[2000]

           I can tell the member opposite that we recognize that when we moved forward with looking at how we could de-bureaucratize and, in fact, make more effective the review of children's services and children's initiatives through the children's officer, we believed the children's officer is an excellent response to the needs of children of British Columbia.

           J. Kwan: Well, let me tell the Premier. Actually, the Premier might pay attention to what's going on around the province, because the ombudsman's office actually sent out a press release, and here's what it says.

           I'm not being selective. I'm just moving to the area that's relevant in terms of the issues around its budget cuts.

           It states: "…such cuts make it impossible for the office to carry out its mandate fully. Kushner said: 'These cuts will reduce the watchdog role of my office at a time when many have noted the role is more critical than ever.'" This is what the ombudsman's office has sent out — a press release. It's not words being made up by the opposition. The press release is recent — February 19, 2003, when the budget cut was made.

           In addition to cuts in the ombudsman's office, I might add, the office funding of the person who is undertaking the work that was done by the previous child and youth advocate has also been cut.

           The ombudsman's office is saying they're no longer going to be able to do their work effectively, and in part, it's our understanding — the opposition's understanding — that they will no longer be able to investigate local governments or self-regulating bodies. What options do citizens have to file complaints against the public bodies that are no longer investigated by the ombudsman's office because of budget cuts?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The ombudsman, as we know, is going to have to face the same kind of challenges that the rest of us do. I was clear, when the officers of the Legislature came forward, that they would be reviewed by the Finance Committee of the Legislature. They were, and the Finance Committee has approved their budgets. It is clear, as we move forward, that all of us are going to have to be part of this long-term solution, and the ombudsman is not exempt from that.

           J. Kwan: Well, that's not the issue — is it now? The independent officer's role is to make sure they do the work around complaints that nobody else will do — with regard to individual complaints around self-regulating public bodies and local governments, as an example. It is part of their role. The independent watchdog reports to all members of the Legislature. The Premier himself admitted, prior to the election, that there's an important role for these individuals to do their job. Now all of a sudden the Premier's become Premier. The then opposition leader has now become Premier, so all of a sudden it's no longer important for them to do their work. Where's the accountability for that? He has not answered the question in terms of where citizens would go to file a complaint if the ombudsman's office is no longer able to do that work because of budget cuts.

           Given the offloading of services onto municipal governments, how did the Premier ensure that local bodies provided dispute resolution mechanisms? That is actually apt and to the point. How are they being funded? Are they being funded?

           Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, the government is not offloading costs to local governments. Secondly, as I've mentioned, we have required the ombudsman to meet the financial challenges and share in the financial challenges that all of us face in government. Thirdly, the ombudsman has come to the Finance Committee of the Legislature to review his budget. That budget has been recommended, and that allows the ombudsman to carry out his activities.

           It is important, I think, to note that in dealing with those activities, it's the ombudsman himself or the ombudsman's office itself that will make priorities, set priorities as we all do. Every ministry of government would like more resources.

           It's critical, I think, for the ombudsman to look at different delivery mechanisms. If the ombudsman would like assistance in how he may be able to deliver his services in a different and more cost-effective way, he can request that. It would be inappropriate for me to try and tell him how to deliver his services, but I'm sure there would be opportunities for someone who is independent to come and review those processes with him.

[2005]

           J. Kwan: Well, the ombudsman's office, like the auditor general's office, has gone before the Finance Committee and made presentations to the Finance Committee on several occasions to advise them that with the lack of resources they're faced with and the budget cuts they're faced with, they would not be able to do their work effectively.

[ Page 7084 ]

           They've said it to the point where the ombudsman's office was forced, I would imagine, to send out a press release. It headlines: "Ombudsman tables unprecedented special financial report." For the first time ever such a report was filed. Then the ombudsman had to advise the Legislature that such cuts make it impossible for the office to carry out its mandate fully. It goes on to say: "The ombudsman's ability to investigate a broad range of provincial and municipal authorities is seriously undermined by the budget cut." Then it goes on to say: "These cuts will reduce the watchdog role of my office at a time when many have noted the role is more critical than ever."

           Yes, the office would have to make priorities. But you know what? The priorities this government has forced the ombudsman's office to make are that it could no longer do its job effectively, it could not meet its mandate fully, and it could not investigate matters that need to be investigated. Most importantly, this Premier is doing this with his eyes wide open. He knows that. He knows that is contrary to his New Era document of accountability. The last thing this Premier wants — the last thing this government wants — is accountability. The more they're able to shut down opposition, the more they're able to shut down the watchdogs who are watching what this government is doing and scrutinizing their every move, the better. That is the agenda behind this Premier and this government.

           Let's just not pretend and play this game where the Premier says everybody has to tighten up their belt. The Premier's office budget went up in certain areas. Then he says: "That's fine. Well, everybody else, you know, you guys can actually deal with your budget problems, but for me? Not me. I shouldn't have to deal with that in certain areas."

           Particularly, I think, it's the public affairs bureau. Their budget skyrocketed. Advertising, infomercials and all of those things are justification for more money for the Premier's office, but not the watchdog's. That's what we have. There's the new accountability in the new era under the Liberal government — this Premier in this office.

           Let me just go further down into another area with the ombudsman's office. The ombudsman presented four different budget options to the committee. He presented a best-case scenario with a 10 percent reduction in funding and no loss of services, and then a worst-case scenario with a funding cut of 35 percent and substantial cuts in services. In between were two proposals with 15 percent cuts. Given these four options, the committee chose the worst-case scenario. Why did the government choose the worst-case scenario when the accountability I just finished talking about is at stake?

           Hon. G. Campbell: In terms of accountability, this government has opened up government. The establishment of generally accepted accounting principles is going to be a critical tool for the public to hold us to account. The new Budget Transparency Act is far more transparent than the previous one was.

           All of those things are important as we develop, I think, openness in public institutions so people know what's happening with their dollars. While the member opposite may suggest that somehow or other this is someone else's dollars, this is actually dollars that we take out of people's pockets. We're trying to be accountable as we deliver services. We're trying to provide information to people that they have said they require. We think that's an appropriate way for us to move forward.

           J. Kwan: I suppose, if you use the logic…. Well, actually, I'll acknowledge that it is all taxpayers' money. Then how is it acceptable for this Premier that he can actually take taxpayers' money from the same pockets of the same taxpayers and put it into his public affairs bureau and then at the same time not allocate those dollars to the areas where they're really needed for public accountability that this Premier campaigned on? Why is that? It's kind of a strange…. Well, actually, it isn't strange. I already know the answer. This government does not want accountability. That is why; that is exactly why.

[2010]

           Citizens will be left out in the cold if they want to make a complaint about these bodies, because the ombudsman's office will no longer be able to provide the services that are required because of the funding cuts. Not only that, is it the case that universities, hospitals, health authorities and the Workers Compensation Board — in terms of these complaints with these agencies — will be put at risk because of budget cuts?

           Hon. G. Campbell: As I said, I was not in the discussion with the ombudsman with regard to his financial plan. I think it's clear that if the ombudsman desires some additional help to look at how services are delivered, to see if they can be delivered more cost-effectively, I'm sure that can be arranged. Indeed, I think the ombudsman will work diligently on behalf of the people of British Columbia. I'm confident of that.

           I'm also confident that the agencies the member opposite refers to are interested in providing services to the people of British Columbia that are open and straightforward. For example, if you look at the universities, as I mentioned, we are trying to bring them into generally accepted accounting principles so that people can see how those activities are taking place. Many universities have their own ombudsman for the students and the public.

           I think there's lots that we can do together. There's lots we can disagree on — no question about that — but I think a cost-effective delivery of services is critical to establishing an accountability framework for all British Columbians.

           It's important also, I think — and I recognize from the tone of the member opposite's question that she wouldn't concur with this…. It's very difficult for the public to hold any of us in the Legislature to account if they don't have information. Innumerable times, the public have said they want to know more. They want

[ Page 7085 ]

to know more about the challenges we face. They want to know more about the decisions we're making. I have every intention of ensuring that people do understand the facts. When people do have the facts, they are able to hold us to account.

           J. Kwan: I know the Premier would like to hide behind the notion that he was not actually involved in that committee, but now that the information is brought to his attention, will he rectify it? Let me just quote from the report from the ombudsman's office, because here's what he says. There's a paragraph that talks about the budget reduction and so on, and the different scenarios, and then it goes on to say: "Unfortunately, the paragraph quoted above might mistakenly convey the impression that the 35 percent reduction was favoured by the ombudsman and that such a reduction is of no serious consequence. This is not the case."

           Then it goes on to say: "…the purpose of presenting options to the committee was to give it an opportunity to evaluate the severe and drastic consequences of that previous recommendation and to reconsider the 35 percent reduction."

           The ombudsman's office is not looking for someone to help them manage efficiencies. The ombudsman's office is looking for someone to resource them so that they can do their work effectively. Now that this information is brought to the attention of the Premier, maybe he'll rectify that. There is still time yet to do exactly that either today or tomorrow.

           I want to touch on this as well. I expect the Premier will say that those organizations I've mentioned — the health authorities, the universities, the hospitals and WCB — have their own ombudsman who investigates complaints. However, what people also look towards these agencies for is to have an arm's-length, independent authority to look into complaint issues. That's what people are looking for.

           The budget of the ombudsman's office is being cut. The budget cut is about $700,000 this year, and it faces potentially $1 million worth of cuts next year. There's simply not enough money or resources within the ombudsman's office to do these investigations.

           Does the Premier know how many FTEs the office will lose as a result of these cuts?

           Hon. G. Campbell: No.

[2015]

           J. Kwan: I would just like to close off on this with the ombudsman's office, and then I'm going to have to move on to the privacy commissioner. I'm noting the time. It's quarter after eight. My colleague has many questions on other areas as well.

           Let me just quote, finally, the provincial ombudsman, who states:

           "…no previous government has so drastically reduced the budget of the office such that complaints of administrative unfairness against certain public authorities cannot be investigated due to a lack of adequate funding. Such a result raises questions about the current government's commitment to ensuring fairness and accountability for the citizens of British Columbia in their interaction with public authorities."

           I'd like to just close with that statement for the Premier's information. Maybe he'll sleep on it and then come back and make sure he directs his ministers, his committee, that the funding for the independent officers needs to be increased and not reduced.

           Office of the information and privacy commissioner cuts: '02-03, $2.35 million; '03-04, $1.88 million — a 20 percent cut; and '04-05, $1.52 million — a 35 percent cut. Just a few questions for the Premier. The office's budget will be cut by 15 percent this year and 20 percent next year, for a total cut of 35 percent. Again, after seeing one-third of his budget cut after introducing legislation that would see the responsibility of the office increase, does the Premier expect this office to protect citizens on issues around information and privacy?

           Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned before, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is going to be reviewed by a legislative committee this year. All of the officers of the Legislature have an opportunity to come forward and make recommendations for how they can improve services. Doing that, they also could accept the offer to look at ways they could deliver shared services strategies. They could look at ways they could come forward and say: "Here's how we deliver these services."

           All ministries of government are facing significant challenges. We recognize that. As we move forward with that, it requires everyone to have a good, hard look at what they're doing and how they're doing it. The information and privacy commissioner is one. The ombudsman is another. The auditor general is another. Clearly, the reason we have those independent officers of the Legislature reporting to a legislative committee is that it is the judgment of the legislative committee that makes a difference as we go through with this.

           We actually value the input of legislative committees and the judgment of them as we go through this process. I believe that every officer of the Legislature has a responsibility to come forward and say: "Here's the best possible budget I could have." But let's be clear. It's not a surprise to hear people asking for more money. The shock would be to have people come back and say, "Here's how we can deliver these services more cost-effectively," without us demanding it.

           Without the legislative committee saying, "Show us how you can deliver these services more cost-effectively," I don't believe it would happen. That's exactly what the legislative committee has done. I have not sat on that legislative committee, and I won't. That's something the Legislature does, and I accept the advice of that committee.

           J. Kwan: I guess I get it now, because for the last two years I've been sitting here thinking. The Minister of Education…. [Applause.] Yeah, clap. The Minister of State for Mental Health, the Minister of State for Long

[ Page 7086 ]

Term and Intermediate Care, the Minister of State for Women's Equality…. In fact, all the ministers in this House have adopted this approach: "Don't blame me. I didn't do it, and I can't see what's happened as a result of the budget cuts, the service cuts and the program cuts. It's somebody else's responsibility." I now know who they get their cue from. It is from the Premier, the head of the cabinet, who actually just demonstrated that in this House right now.

           All of those things the Premier said the independent officers should do, they have already done. They have done it over and over again with no recourse, to the point where press releases have to be sent out warning citizens, British Columbians, that trouble is coming.

           The Premier knows there is a problem now, and he's not doing anything about it, because — you know what? — he is sitting in his chair with his eyes wide shut. "Don't blame me." No accountability in this new-era government with this Premier.

           J. MacPhail: The Premier said that everybody has to get used to getting their budget cut, but there's one area that wasn't cut — the public affairs bureau. They had an increase of $7 million. That's part of the Premier's office. Here's why the public affairs bureau had to have their budget increased. It's because the Premier stated that this is needed to counter what others are saying about his government and his policies.

           Let's start, then, with the Coquihalla advertising. What is it about that announcement, which came out of the blue, that required an advertising campaign, and how much is the Premier paying for that advertising campaign?

[2020]

           Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, the budget that's been set aside for information — and advertising, if you want — is a budget that's there to make sure the people of British Columbia get the information they need. I should point out that the budget is below what the budget was in 2001-02.

           I think it's important for us to recognize that people have asked for information. The member opposite knows that the information is available through public accounts. It will be available in June of this year. I don't have the information on what the ads cost that have been inserted with regard to the Coquihalla, but I know that information is available and will be available through the public accounts.

           J. MacPhail: Since when is it acceptable in estimates for a Premier or a minister to refer us to public accounts? When did that become acceptable? Is that openness and accountability? And might I just say the public accounts that will become available are for '02-03, and we're talking about the '03-04 budget now. I'm surprised the Premier didn't know that.

           Why is it that the Premier doesn't know what the Coquihalla advertising is? Why is it that nobody in his government is willing to come clean on what that advertising costs? The Minister of Transportation won't tell what the costs are, and now the Premier won't. Tell me: what's open and accountable about that?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I'm surprised the member opposite doesn't realize this, but the budget is across government. There will be various advertising programs that will be put in place. I don't know what the cost of the Coquihalla insertions were. I don't know what we intend them to be. I would assume the member opposite would like to get the facts. The facts will be made available as they are. They will be transparent, and they will be correct, and I won't be guessing what they may be. That's what I think people want. I'm sorry if the previous government didn't manage things this way. I think they often didn't have any of the facts. We will provide the facts. The facts will be available, and the member can hold us to account for those.

           J. MacPhail: Actually, the money has been spent. So how much did the Coquihalla ads cost, and why doesn't the Premier have that information available? He's in charge of the public affairs bureau. His budget was increased by $7 million at exactly the same time that the Ministry of Children and Family Development budget was being cut by tens of millions of dollars. Child care was being cut by tens of millions of dollars. Who are we supposed to ask? Or, let me see, does this government say: "Go ahead and spend whatever you need, because we're in deep trouble here. Who cares about what the costs are"?

           We've got a full — what is it now? — 37 minutes left to hold this Premier to account, so let's find out how much is budgeted for the Coquihalla advertising campaign. Let me ask this: seven million new dollars…. The advertising budget is up from previous governments under this government as a proportion of budget — absolutely. Let's just find out what the plan is. What's the plan for the $7 million?

           Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, I don't think the member opposite is correct. The budget for the public affairs bureau is actually down from what it was in 2000-01. It's substantially down from what it was in 1994-95. It's substantially down from what it was in 1996-97. Yes, we have a budget in public affairs. It covers the entire gamut of government. Advertising is part of that, and I think it's important for us to know that advertising is part of that.

           It's part of a public information strategy. It's similar to the information strategy that we put together with regard to the Picture of Health. It's fine for people to be upset that the facts are out there, but when we hear this kind of opposition, it's only because they don't want the facts to be out there. The facts will be made available.

           The budget is clear. The advertising and information budget will come in on budget or under budget. It will be applied, and when the public accounts come out, we'll see where the costs were. Anything over $25,000 will be clearly itemized, and the members opposite will see exactly where the government is investing those

[ Page 7087 ]

dollars. I can't give those numbers today because I don't have them.

[2025]

           J. MacPhail: Well, that's pretty incompetent. We're debating the estimates of a $7 million item of the Premier, and he doesn't have those numbers. "Why not?" is the question.

           Of course he's got the numbers. Or does it mean this government has actually budgeted seven million bucks for advertising when they're cutting everywhere else, and he doesn't know what it's going to be spent on? He doesn't know what doo-doo he's going to get in, doesn't realize how upset the people were about matters such as the Coquihalla privatization?

           Let me break this down, then. How much of the $7 million is being spent to purchase advertising in the media?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I want to be clear. The $19 million that has been budgeted for advertising is going to be spent on advertising. The advertising budget will include production. It will include placements. It may include newspaper ads; it may include regional; it may include provincial ads. This is a budget that's set out for the next year. That budget in the next year will be going to advertising. That's why it's called the advertising budget.

           We want to provide people with information. We want to provide people throughout the province with information about health care. We want them to understand the challenges that we face. We want them to see what we're trying to do to meet those challenges. We want to engage them in a public discussion about that. We'll provide information, I'm sure, about education. We'll provide information, I'm sure, about the Coquihalla. We'll provide information about other activities. I simply do not have, today, a detailed outline of where those dollars will all go.

           The Coquihalla advertising is there to provide people in those specific communities with direct information, factual information, which apparently isn't there. We want to provide those facts for people in the communities. They can see what's happening. They can see where the benefits are in terms of the Coquihalla. Those dollars will be done when that program is complete. I'm sure the Coquihalla program will not be complete for some time. We know there's more information that people are going to want to see. They're going to want to know what happens as we go through request for proposals. They're going to want to know what mayors' councils say, etc.

           All of those things are part of a public information campaign to make sure the public has information that they, after all, pay for. That's what we're doing in terms of public information, and I think that is a sensible approach as we move forward through the months ahead.

           J. MacPhail: Gee, I guess we can't have any specific details on a $7 million item. Did the Premier say $19 million in advertising? I didn't hear that.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Advertising and publications — I correct myself. Advertising and publications, under STOB 67.

           J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I thought the Premier said $19 million. That's what I was asking.

           Hon. G. Campbell: Advertising and publications under STOB 67, the budget for '03-04 is $19.504 million.

           J. MacPhail: That's what I was asking: how much of that is for advertising in the media? Turns out we don't have an answer. Isn't that interesting?

           What polling is done by the public affairs bureau and how often?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The public affairs bureau does carry out polling. I will get the specific dollar amount for polling for the member opposite. I don't have it right here at my fingertips, and I'd rather she had it correctly identified.

           J. MacPhail: Oh no, why would I want to have that information? Why would the government anticipate that that question may come up? They probably did anticipate that question, and they're deliberately not answering it.

           How often does the public affairs bureau poll?

[2030]

           Hon. G. Campbell: The public affairs bureau does not poll very often or on a very regular basis. The polls that are done under the public affairs bureau are regularly made available upon request, and that will continue to be the case.

           J. MacPhail: Under the previous administration, polls paid out of public funds had to be put in the library, the Legislative Library, within 30 days of their conduct. Is that not still the rule?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Polls are still put in the Legislative Library.

           J. MacPhail: How soon after they're conducted?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sorry. I don't have the answer to that, but I don't know of any change in policy.

           J. MacPhail: Is all of the polling that is conducted across government, ministry by ministry, done through the public affairs bureau?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The policy of the government is that all polling should be approved by public affairs.

           J. MacPhail: The last time we were together in estimates, the public affairs bureau was just about to be significantly restructured, and then of course it was last June. We have been keeping track of changes to the public affairs bureau since its restructuring in June. It

[ Page 7088 ]

kind of tops the list of OICs in terms of changes that occur in the public affairs bureau — people added, people changed, people's titles changed, people going. In fact, rarely a week goes by that there isn't an OIC where someone's status has changed.

           What is the current FTE complement of the public affairs bureau?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The maximum amount under the current complement is 210. I don't believe all of those spaces are currently filled.

           J. MacPhail: What are the staffing costs of the public affairs bureau?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The salaries and benefits are $13.578 million.

           J. MacPhail: What increase is that, year over year?

           Hon. G. Campbell: That's a reduction from 2002-03.

           J. MacPhail: Okay. Could I have the '02-03 figures, please?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The '02-03 salaries and benefits were $14.993 million, and in '03-04 the salaries and benefits are $13.578 million.

           J. MacPhail: Let's see. That's about $1.4 million, so that's a 10 percent reduction. What is the plan for the '04-05 budget in terms of reduction?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The total salaries and benefits for '04-05 are $13.49 million.

           J. MacPhail: How is it possible that they get away with just a 10 percent reduction over that period of time, when the rest of the government is up to a 30 or 35 percent reduction?

           Hon. G. Campbell: There was a significant reduction, as the member opposite will recall, from 2001-02 to 2002-3 from $18.6 million to $14.9 million.

           J. MacPhail: Who could tell whether that figure was real or not? There was a complete reorganization across government. When I questioned the Premier about what people were still in ministries performing jobs that hadn't been moved over, he had no answer for that. I have no idea whether that number is correct.

[2035]

           The Premier is saying that a 10 percent reduction, when everybody else in years two and three are getting 15 percent, such as the auditor general, or 23 percent in the Ministry of Children and Family Development…. This budget is only 10 percent cut?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The reduction in costs for the public affairs bureau staff and salaries and benefits is roughly between 35 and 40 percent between 2001-02 and 2003-04. As I mentioned to the member opposite last year, there was a significant reduction in FTEs from 322 approved positions down to 210 approved positions. The total number of approved positions I don't believe is full at this time, as I mentioned to you. There are recoveries that take place as a result of that as well. At this point we're looking at stabilizing the salaries and benefit package at the 210 number, but there was significant reduction between 2001-02 and this year.

           J. MacPhail: Well, that claim for reduction only holds true if the ministries aren't doing their own communications work, because that's the basis upon which the Premier claimed the big reduction — that it was all to be centralized in the public affairs bureau. But Health Services has an extensive contract hiring going on for communications services — extensive contracting for communications. Has the Premier given the Ministry of Health Services an exemption from having to go through the public affairs bureau? Where is that money coming from?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The programs that the member is referring to in Health Services are contract services. They're generally program management services. They are certainly lower than was the case under the previous government. More importantly, I think, with regard to those services, they're taken out of the budget of the ministry to help administer the program delivery.

           J. MacPhail: No, no, no. These are contracts for communications services, just communication services — not for program services. Communication services. I don't know how the Premier would know what relationship they are to previous governments or not. I have no idea how he could stand up and make that statement. These are contracts for communication services for the Ministry of Health Services, not for program services.

           What's clear now is that the spin doctors — I guess they have some sort of exemption from having to go under the public affairs bureau — in the Ministry of Health Services are taking dollars directly out of patient care. Isn't that great news? So the public affairs bureau budget is increased by $7 million for media advertising. And it is that amount; I actually know that. The Premier won't tell me that, but that's what it is. On top of that, the Ministry of Health Services has its own budget. The role of the system is broken down, and they're spending health dollars, patient care dollars, on communications themselves.

           I'm so sorry to report that the reorganization of the public affairs bureau was a failure in 2002, and it's a complete sham in 2003.

           Does the public affairs bureau approve only communications material, or is it also involved with the approval of policy documents, such as the various consultation papers that are released by this government?

[2040]

           Hon. G. Campbell: The cabinet develops policy. Policy decisions are made by cabinet. Those policy de-

[ Page 7089 ]

cisions are then given to public affairs, obviously, to provide for communication to the public. The public affairs bureau is not a policy development arm of government. The cabinet is the policy development arm of government.

           J. MacPhail: Let's just look at the contaminated sites review, for an example. What role did the public affairs bureau play in that?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I can't tell you specifically with regard to the contaminated sites what the public affairs bureau did. I can tell you that the policy development would be done by the cabinet.

           In fact, it was a change with this government from the previous government. We start with policy. When we've developed the policy and made a decision, we may want to have a consultation program that we engage the public in. We may have received advice from the public affairs bureau on how we developed that consultation process. Those are all parts of building an effective public communications program. Policy is developed by cabinet. I can't tell you specifically with regard to contaminated sites.

           J. MacPhail: I'd like this information, please, along with all of the other questions that couldn't be answered tonight. How much is the Ministry of Health Services paying for contracted communications services, and who approved that? Who in the public affairs bureau approved having the Ministry of Health Services do that on their own? The Premier said in estimates last time that that was going to stop.

           I'd also like information about the contaminated sites review, about exactly what the public affairs bureau's role was in that. Has the reporting relationship changed since the reorganization of the public affairs bureau and the departure of Irene Chanin?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I believe I pointed this out during the last estimates. If I didn't, it certainly is since the last estimates, as the member will know. The communications staff reports directly to my chief of staff for information for development of programs. In terms of administration, etc., that is handled by the public affairs bureau as well as the deputy minister to the Premier.

           J. MacPhail: You see, the Premier couldn't give me any of this information in the last set of estimates, because it was just in the design phase. Then, of course, the minute his estimates were over, it turns out that the design phase was quickly snapped into shape and put into place, so I didn't have an answer to that question.

           Sorry. The head of the public affairs bureau reports to Martyn Brown?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The organization chart, for the member opposite, is on the website. The executive director of communications, public affairs bureau, reports through to Martyn Brown. The administration of public affairs is carried out and handled through the deputy minister to the Premier as well as Mr. Brown.

           J. MacPhail: Was that a change as a result of the reorganization about the reporting between the executive director of public affairs now reporting to Martyn Brown? Was that a change?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Yes.

           J. MacPhail: Why?

           Hon. G. Campbell: We recognize that the public affairs bureau is by nature the communication arm for the government. We felt it was important to identify that, which is why the appointments are now done by OIC. It's clear that it's got to be part of a coordinated government communication structure, and Mr. Brown is responsible for that.

[2045]

           J. MacPhail: Well, ain't that interesting — a government that wasn't going to do any partisan communications, was just going to give the facts. Now the entire public affairs bureau reports to the chief political operative, the chief partisan operative in the Premier's office. How's that not partisan? Isn't that interesting?

           There's another broken promise, I guess — eh? We have the chief partisan, unelected, in charge of the public affairs bureau in this province. Where is Irene Chanin now?

           Hon. G. Campbell: She's at BCBC.

           J. MacPhail: Okay, I've got — what? — 13, 14 minutes left. Let's talk about e-government. E-government was a big topic, and the portal project was a big topic in question period, and it was a big topic in estimates last year. I had a lot of discussion with the Minister of Management Services about this matter. Well, actually, I asked a lot of questions. There weren't very many answers, but I asked a lot of questions.

           Whose decision was it to move the e-portal project from the Premier's office to the Ministry of Management Services? What was the journal voucher transfer for that project transfer?

           Hon. G. Campbell: First, the question is: what was the journal voucher transfer? Does that mean: what was the budget transfer? Is that what you're asking?

           The budget transfer, '01-02, was 2550, and it was transferred out this year. It's now in the Management Services ministry.

           J. MacPhail: So $2.55 million was transferred from the Premier's office to the Minister of Management Services for the e-portal project. How much had been spent? When was it transferred, and how much had actually been spent up to that point?

           Hon. G. Campbell: I'm just getting that information for the member. The service was transferred in the spring of this year and the last year, and the resources that were required for the portal project clearly covered

[ Page 7090 ]

a number of other areas as well. The portal project is just one part of an integrated service delivery model which will include government agents and which includes integrated services, integrated servers, etc., — a different level of security across government. All of those have been transferred into Management Services at the recommendation of the Premier's Technology Council and also at the recommendation of the private sector, which felt that we had far more to gain by bringing all of those services under one roof.

           J. MacPhail: It's been reported that this project is 400 percent over budget. Is that correct?

           Hon. G. Campbell: No.

           J. MacPhail: Well, the Premier said that it was going to cost about $4.5 million. The Minister of Management Services says it's now going to cost $18 million. That's 400 percent over budget in my books. That was the information I gleaned from the Ministry of Management Services.

[2050]

           Hon. G. Campbell: I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this for the member. The member's numbers are multi-year numbers. This was never a single-year project. The dollars that were invested in this project, the electronic service delivery project, were $5.8 million for 2003-04, $6.8 million for '03-04 and $3.7 million for '04-05. That totals up to $17.6 million.

           The operation is more than simply a portal. The portal is one part of the operation. There are many more components to that operation as we build it through. There has been a lot of discussion about the portal and how it works. I know the member opposite did have the opportunity to discuss this in detail with the Ministry of Management Services. But the critical component of this is to recognize that it's both multi-year and multi-component. It is not simply the portal.

           J. MacPhail: Well, of course, that's all new information. That wasn't the way the Premier presented it when he announced this project. Oh my gosh. Here we are, on this, and I have questions on the Crown agencies secretariat.

           Who's in charge of the Crown agencies secretariat now?

           Hon. G. Campbell: My deputy minister for restructuring.

           J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Who is that? Is there a new person there since we last had estimates?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Sorry. A new appointment as the head of the Crown agencies secretariat? I'm sorry. I thought you meant who they report to. Yes, there is.

           J. MacPhail: And who is that?

           Hon. G. Campbell: Her name is Dana Hayden.

           J. MacPhail: What role does the Crown agencies secretariat play in the restructuring of the Crowns?

           Hon. G. Campbell: The Crown agencies secretariat worked with all of the Crowns as we went through the core services review as core review was approved by cabinet, as the decisions were made by cabinet. The Crown agency secretariat provides a coordinative function, provides an opportunity for them to communicate openly with government and will continue to build a new governance model between the Crown corporations and the government as the Crown corporations become increasingly independent of government.

           J. MacPhail: I see that according to our motion, we have to wrap up now — the motion passed by the government that it's all over. My colleague and I, of course, want to use these remaining minutes to vote against this budget, and we have to have that done by adjournment. The hour of adjournment is 9 p.m., so no business can be done after that, and we want to vote. We are extremely upset that the Premier's budget has been increased while all other budgets have been cut, so my colleague and I will be voting against this on division.

           Vote 8 approved on division.

[2055]

           Vote 1: legislation, $42,955,000 — approved.

           Vote 2: auditor general, $7,901,000 — approved.

           Vote 3: conflict-of-interest commissioner, $292,000 — approved.

           Vote 4: Elections B.C., $7,509,000 — approved.

           Vote 5: information and privacy commissioner, $1,972,000 — approved.

           Vote 6: ombudsman, $4,050,000 — approved.

           Vote 7: police complaint commissioner, $985,000 — approved.

           Hon. S. Hawkins: I move that the committee rise and report resolutions.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 9 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

           J. Weisbeck: Mr. Speaker, the committee rises, reports resolution of votes 1 through 8 and asks leave to sit again.

[ Page 7091 ]

           Mr. Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

           Hon. G. Collins: Forthwith, Mr. Speaker.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: I move that the report….

Point of Order

           J. MacPhail: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

           Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

           J. MacPhail: Standing orders were to adjourn now.

           Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Government House Leader.

           Hon. G. Collins: Perhaps the member can get briefed on how it works, but….

           J. MacPhail: Pardon me?

           Mr. Speaker: We'll need a motion.

           J. MacPhail: Exactly — to extend the hours.

           Mr. Speaker: We'll need a motion, Mr. House Leader. Go ahead.

           Hon. G. Collins: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed for one minute.

           Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition seeks the floor.

           J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting. This is a debatable motion, so I'm speaking to the motion.

           Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.

           J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance waltzes in from his TV show, gets everybody to stall here and then thinks that he can abuse the rules of the House by just standing up and carrying on business, when he's limiting the debate of the opposition in terms of what can be discussed.

           We didn't even get…. We got a few hours with the Premier on his estimates — had hours of questions left. And this Government House Leader waltzes in, thinks he can just take right over, doesn't have to follow the rules, didn't put it in as part of his motion. He didn't put it in as part of the motion that set out the way proceedings were supposed to happen.

           It is unbelievable how this government runs roughshod over this Legislature — the disdain that this government has for this Legislature. Then the Minister of Finance, the Government House Leader, says: "Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could learn how this place runs." I know how this place runs. It's run with an iron fist by the government to limit debate, close down debate, shut it off, ensure that nothing is discussed, and then they think they can waltz in here and just pass whatever they want.

[2105]

           It is the most incompetent handling of this House that we have ever seen. The government is now going to push through something. We don't know what the government is going to push through. Is it part of the motion? We don't know. Maybe they had a meeting in our absence and changed the rules of the House. I know the respect that the Speaker has for this chamber. He would not permit that. Thank gosh we have somebody in the parliamentary democratic system that doesn't allow the government, even with its majority, to act as a tyranny.

           It would have been lovely if my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant could have just carried on, but we have seen, day after day here — well, at least for the last three days — this government cut off debate no matter what the import. So it is the ultimate irony that the Government House Leader waltzes in here and tries to ram through who knows what. Who knows what he's trying to ram through? That is what he's trying to do to avoid the rules of this House, and he thinks that's just fine.

           Who knows — who could possibly know — what it was? There's no order, there's no following of a motion, and he just thinks that everything's fine. The final supply, whatever was supposed to be done, is supposed to be done by 9 o'clock. That's when they cut off debate for us, when they cut off the debate for the opposition.

           It is shameful. Once again just another little petty, arbitrary, tyrannical use of this House by this government. Shame on the government.

           J. Kwan: The Government House Leader would like to have you believe that he has given notice to the opposition. He would like to have you believe that in the motion that he moved on Monday, May 26, it included final supply as the part of the motion. But you know what, hon. Speaker? It doesn't.

           You know what, Mr. Speaker? When the government put forward its schedule, it comes with specific times associated with it. On Monday, when my colleague was debating in this House the estimates for the Minister of Health Services — 40 percent of the budget — right at 4:45 p.m., as per their schedule which is tabled and adopted in this House with the opposition opposing it, debate was shut down. Debate was shut down because it was 4:45 p.m. on the dot. Then the government said: "Move on, move on." Bills 40 and 45 then were being debated at a later time.

           Then what happened yesterday? Health Services debate in the small House. Actually, no, before I go to yesterday, let me go to Tuesday. What happened on Tuesday? On the order paper, on the motion that was moved by the Government House Leader, it says Section A, 5 o'clock to 9 o'clock, the Minister of State for Mental Health and then the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. Total disregard

[ Page 7092 ]

for the motion again in the small House. What happens? The Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care shows up and then engages in debate. Then when I got up and asked the Chair the question: "What happened to the motion that we're supposed to follow to the T…?"

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Please proceed.

           J. Kwan: We're supposed to follow the motion to a T when it pleases the government. What happened when I asked the Chair what happened to the Minister of State for Mental Health? Well, they said they couldn't find him. Then there was a vote in this House that was called to deal with Bill 40, and lo and behold, the Minister of State for Mental Health shows up. Couldn't find him when we were doing estimates, but later on, when the vote was called, when the bells were rung, there he is. Magically, he appears.

[2110]

           Then yesterday Health Services debate from 10 o'clock to 6 o'clock in the small House. The Minister of Health Services then, at 6 o'clock, gets up and accuses the opposition of holding up debate and preventing government members from asking questions of the ministers. That's what he did. Two opposition members, and somehow we're holding up debate.

           This government is running roughshod over the institution that this place is to be and has traditionally been. They make up rules when they want to, when it suits them, and they use their majority to do whatever they want at any time.

           Today we're supposed to follow the schedule for 9 o'clock. There's supposed to be adjournment of debate, but that doesn't happen. Why? Because it doesn't suit the Government House Leader. Why? Because he has a TV show. Why? Because he's incompetent in managing this House.

           Before I even went on maternity….

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let's have some order in the House, and let's listen to the speaker.

           J. Kwan: Before I even went on maternity — that's almost two months ago now — the opposition actually offered that we finish all estimates before I go on maternity. We would cooperate in whatever manner we could to expedite that. And you know what? It wasn't because the opposition held up the House that the business of the House could not be done; it is because of the incompetence of this House Leader. He could not manage the House, could not bring legislation into the House to keep business going. That's what happened.

           But no, the House Leader is blaming everybody else for his own incompetence. Now here we have another motion, yet another motion — just because the government feels like it — to cover up for their incompetence at any expense, with no consideration whatsoever for the opposition. Shame.

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the motion before the House is in order.

           Hon. G. Collins: The hysteria we see opposite is remarkable. This House has spent I don't know how many hours in this last session accommodating the two members opposite…

           J. MacPhail: Oh, give me a break.

           Hon. G. Collins: …with innumerable recesses, with innumerable breaks…

           J. MacPhail: Sorry, I have to go to the bathroom. You're right.

           Hon. G. Collins:…with innumerable opportunities for the members opposite to get their books, to do what they need to do. We've done that….

           J. Kwan: I'm sorry I had to use the bathroom.

           Hon. G. Collins: The thing these members have to realize is this House isn't all about them. It's about the people of British Columbia, and it's about passing….

           Interjection.

           Hon. G. Collins: The member says maybe they would like to debate the Health estimates. The members have been talking and railing about how the Health estimates have been rammed through the House. We spent more time on Health estimates this year than last year — almost double. We hear all sorts of ranting and hysteria….

           J. MacPhail: Your incompetence is stunning.

           Hon. G. Collins: All sorts….

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order.

           Government House Leader has the floor.

           Hon. G. Collins: The reality is that we have made every accommodation for the members opposite.

           I normally don't like to discuss House business on the floor of the House. There's a longstanding tradition in parliament that those matters back and forth, the quiet negotiations that are supposed to take place between government and opposition for orderly progression of matters through the Legislature or parliament, are done outside of parliament and not on the floor of the House. Repeatedly, those two members have decided to bring them onto the floor of the chamber, unlike what is done in every other parliament. One

[ Page 7093 ]

can't have negotiations and discussions with them in any sort of frank or responsible way to try and accommodate their needs without it appearing on the floor of the Legislature.

[2115]

           I don't know if it's part of their overall strategy or whether they just like playing the victims. The fact of the matter is that we have gone out of our way to accommodate the two members of the opposition over and over again, day after day. We have ministers sitting here for ten or 15 minutes waiting for the members of the opposition to go get their books. They know what's coming up next. We brief them ahead of time. They can bring their work in here with them. We do try to accommodate it.

           This year, for example, one of the members had to take a protracted leave. I think that's great. But it means that the House has to operate differently if there's only one member of the opposition, as opposed to two.

           True, I tried really hard to have neither of them elected. But the fact of the matter is that they tried very hard to have none of us elected. At the end of the day the voters decided. The voters, the people of British Columbia, decided there would be two members of the opposition. I didn't decide it. Other members in this House only had one vote. The voters decided there would be two.

           We go out of our way to accommodate the two members that are here. We will continue to go out of our way to accommodate the two members of the opposition. But the hysteria we hear from these two members over and over again about how they're being victimized is simply not true. It's ridiculous, and it's shameful, quite frankly. If they want to get pity from the voters, they can go on the hustings and do that. They shouldn't do it in the House.

           The orderly business of the House is that we will conclude the matter of final supply here tonight. I would suggest that this House pass the motion. We can conclude the business, and we can continue to do what the people of British Columbia elected us to do, and that's to get their job done for them.

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the question before the House is that the House adjourn for one minute.

           Motion approved.

           Mr. Speaker: We shall return in 60 seconds.

           The House recessed from 9:17 p.m. to 9:18 p.m.

           [Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

           Hon. G. Collins: I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Supply dealing with the supplementary estimates on May 12, together with the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on March 5, 6, 13, 31, April 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 28, 30, May 1, 5, 26, 27 and 28 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $25,000,261,000. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1) 2003, and the supplementary estimates presented on May 12, 2003, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service for the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $1,280,732,000. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1) 2003, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the capital, loans, investments and other financing requirements of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004.

           Motion approved.

[2120]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

            Hon. G. Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2003-2004.

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

           Motion approved.

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, in keeping with the practice of this House, the final supply bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

           Hon. G. Collins: If I can do my first reading speech first, then we can move on.

           This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation of government programs for the 2003-04 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by the Committee of Supply after consideration of the main estimates and supplementary estimates. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the report of the resolutions from the Committee of Supply and, in addition, has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004.

           Mr. Speaker, not to pre-empt your ruling, it's the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few moments while the bill is being circulated.

[ Page 7094 ]

           Bill 47 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, as already stated, it is the practice of this House, and the final supply bill will be allowed to proceed through all stages in one sitting.

Second Reading of Bills

           Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

           Bill 47, Supply Act, 2003-2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

 SUPPLY ACT 2003-2004

           The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 47; R. Stewart in the chair.

           The committee met at 9:24 p.m.

           Sections 1 and 2 approved.

           Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

           Preamble approved.

           Title approved.

           Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 9:25 p.m.

           The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

           Bill 47, Supply Act, 2003-2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

           Hon. G. Collins moved adjournment of the House.

           Motion approved.

           Mr. Speaker: The House is adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

           The House adjourned at 9:26 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television. 

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2003: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN: 1499-2175