Hansard -- Tuesday, May 18, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 25, No. 16 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		11199

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		11200
	Destination ImagiNation competition
	R. Sultan
	Impact of government policies on airport authorities
	G. Halsey-Brandt
	Hospital Employees Union executive
	R. Hawes

Oral Questions		11201
	B.C. Rail spending on maintenance and operations
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Campbell
	Investigation of child abuse complaints and death of Kayla John
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Clark
	French immersion
	R. Stewart
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Funding for HIV/AIDS strategy
	J. Bray
	Hon. C. Hansen

Tabling Documents		11203
	Statement of 2003-04 Borrowings

Committee of Supply		11204
	Estimates: Office of the Premier
	Hon. G. Campbell
	J. MacPhail
	J. Kwan

Hon. G. Campbell: At noon today we had a special event in the Legislature to proclaim June 13, 2004, as Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion Day in British Columbia. It's a chance for British Columbians to participate in motion events across the province and to show their support for Rick Hansen's dream.

Rick is known around the world for his exceptional leadership, improving the lives of people who've had spinal cord injuries. Indeed, if we think back to when the Man in Motion tour was completed in 1987, it's hard to believe that 90 percent of the information we have learned and the science we have developed has taken place since that time, when Rick and his tour raised $26 million for spinal cord research.

I know the Legislature would like to welcome Rick to the House today along with representatives from the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Foundation: Cathy Golabianko, Theresa Laine, Greg Latham, Bobby Tanguay and Lorraine Wilson. They're here along with a number of other guests who share Rick's vision for the cure for spinal cord injuries, and I know that all the House would like to make them welcome. We all wish for the quick discovery of the cure that will make a difference in so many people's lives.

Hon. L. Reid: It's my pleasure today to welcome to the gallery members of the Canadian Women Voters Congress, a non-partisan organization which is incredibly effective in terms of welcoming women to the process, teaching them skills about the democratic process and encouraging them to run in future elections across all parties. It has been my honour to be the honorary co-chair this year. We have a number of representatives today that I'd ask you to please welcome. The chair is with us, Lorraine Sims; board member Janet Wiegand, Leslie Thompson of Vancouver, Gale Fugere of Burnaby, Allison McDonald of Vancouver, Rosalind Kellet of Vancouver, Inger Weber of Port Alberni, Dana Miller of Richmond, Jen Fisher-Bradley of Victoria, Elizabeth Botman of Vancouver, and Angela Matthews.

I would also extend my thanks to the Speaker for hosting these parliamentarians at a luncheon.

J. Nuraney: I am very proud to announce that a team of young students from Burnaby South Slope Elementary, after having won the provincial finals, will be competing in the world finals of the Odyssey of the Mind to be held in Maryland between May 29 and June 2. They are Jessica Sypen, Nicole A., Chris McClelland, Kevin Chen, Steven Lin, Dmitri Lennikov and Andrew Woo. They are coached by their teachers, Holly Lloyd and James Brown. May the House please join me in wishing them well.

Hon. S. Bond: On May 5, Softball Canada announced the 15 women who will represent Canada in this year's Summer Olympics. Among these is a young woman named Sasha Olson. Sasha is from the small but very plucky community of Valemont, British Columbia, in my riding of Prince George–Mount Robson.

When Vancouver hosts the Winter Olympics in 2010, I know that we will see many more young British Columbians like Sasha, from communities large and small, striving for success. I would ask the House to please join me in celebrating Sasha's incredible athletic achievement.

Hon. J. van Dongen: On behalf of the member for Chilliwack-Kent, I would like to introduce Ms. Donna Broomfield and her friend Ms. Clark. Ms. Broomfield helped my colleague get through law school at the University of Victoria by providing room and board in the early 1990s. As his current roommate, I can certainly attest to the member's need for culinary assistance. I would ask the House to please make both these visitors very welcome.

R. Lee: I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce another school group from my riding that is visiting the Legislature today. In the gallery are 24 grade 10 students from Alpha Secondary in Burnaby who are here to learn about the history of the buildings and how the Legislature works. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Dale Lintott, Ms. Lara Moore and Ms. Linda Bardini. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today are representatives from one of the largest goldmining companies in the world, a company which operates in the United States, Tanzania, Australia, Chile, Peru, Argentina and Russia. It has an operation here in British Columbia which is noted for its very productive and healthy working relationship with the Tahltan nation.

They have heard that there's a new breeze blowing through the mining industry in B.C., and they're here to check us out. Would the House please welcome Barrick Gold Corporation's vice-presidents Kelvin Dushnisky and Greg Lang.

P. Nettleton: Today we have a special guest here. Her name is Kaylee Butler. She's age seven — from Sidney here on Vancouver Island. I'm told she enjoys Brownies, camping, and she's very interested in the Legislature. Please give her a big welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: In the precincts today I am pleased to introduce to the House Deborah Fauteux, who is providing administrative support in my office. Would the House please join me in making her welcome.

R. Sultan: If any member should despair over prospects for our youth, they should — such as I did recently — spend a day at Destination ImagiNation. Each year students from all over British Columbia, ages roughly six to 16 — about 1,000 of them — gather on the North Shore to be challenged with improv assignments requiring them without notice, working under tight deadlines and in small teams, to simultaneously build robust engineering structures, write and act in a play, and solve complex scientific problems dressed in weird costumes. Sound complicated? These kids ate it up. By the end of the day, the competition, accomplishment and fun left everybody feeling wired.

Destination ImagiNation is based on the concept of divergent thinking — understanding that there's more than one way to solve a problem. It teaches students to navigate the challenges of life by tapping into their own creativity and their teammates' to solve multidimensional problems thrust upon them without warning. Hmm, I thought. That's how we used to train senior executives. It works.

Our B.C. contest is one small piece of a global competition. I'm proud that three North Shore teams are among those from British Columbia who won gold at the recent provincial tournament. These innovation champions will represent our province at the global finals next week at the University of Tennessee, where close to 18,000 others from more than 51 states and 20 countries will compete to see who's the best in the world. I think we are, and we shall soon find out.

By the way, thanks to director Faith Garriock and the Ministry of Solicitor General for helping fund this program.

G. Halsey-Brandt: I would like to bring to the attention of the House a serious obstacle in the way of economic development in British Columbia — that of excessive rent charged by Ottawa to the Victoria and Vancouver airport authorities. Victoria Airport Authority will pay the federal government $1.1 million in rent in 2004 and has the distinction of being the only small airport in Canada currently paying rent. Both the Victoria Airport Authority and the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce have called for an end to the unfair burden that federal fees and rents place on their airports, air travellers, and that hurt the local economy.

In the case of Vancouver Airport, which is in my constituency, YVR began with a lease payment of $15.5 million in 1992 when the local airport authority was established. It has now increased to $72 million in 2004, almost a fivefold increase over the past decade. In 2002 Vancouver's rent was ten times higher than Montreal's, seven times higher than Edmonton's and three times higher than Calgary's. Therefore, not only is the rent payable staggering and the rate of increase unacceptable, but the rent paid by airports across Canada demonstrates the unfairness to Vancouver and Victoria.

British Columbia and YVR also suffer from a very discriminatory foreign airline access policy. For example, 90 percent of the bilateral aviation agreements allow access by foreign airlines to Montreal and 75 percent access to Toronto, while only 40 percent allow access to Vancouver. Canada needs a more liberal international air policy or, at the very least, to allow equal access by foreign carriers to any airport.

The federal auditor general has called for a review of the inequities in the airport system. Now is the time to bring equality, fairness and an economic development lens to the system. I know my constituents and British Columbians generally will demand no less.

R. Hawes: We all know that the HEU leadership has refused to allow its members to vote on whether they want an 11 percent wage rollback or a 10 percent rollback in benefits. I have a letter here from the employer, the HEABC, to Mr. Chris Allnutt of the HEU offering 60 days in which the HEU could conduct a secret ballot vote of their membership to determine whether they wanted the rollback to be achieved exclusively through wage reduction.

I also have a leaked e-mail from one of the bargaining committee members to Mr. Allnutt asking why this letter from the HEABC was withheld from the bargaining committee. The e-mail says:

He goes on to say: "I think it's appalling that you are not willing for this decision to go to a vote."

I have further examples of e-mails from HEU members, all with the same theme. For example:

A further quote says: "We want to stay and change the health care bargaining structure, but once again the HEU is the main roadblock to a commonsense solution and what is in the best interests of health care and the taxpayers of British Columbia." By denying its membership a vote, Mr. Allnutt has put politics ahead of paycheques and of people's lives and families.

J. MacPhail: Three days until this place shuts down until the fall, three days until the government can hide from questions on B.C. Rail, and I'm sure they're all relieved. But before the cabinet heads off for the barbecue circuit for the summer, maybe the Premier can tell this House how much money B.C. Rail is spending right now to spruce up operations before the Premier hands it over to CN for 990 years.

Hon. G. Campbell: As you know, Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Rail investment partnership agreement is before the competition board. At the time when that is complete, everyone will have all of that information. In terms of what B.C. Rail is doing, it's trying to keep an ongoing operation that works for its shippers, and that's what we would expect it to do as we go through this transition period.

J. MacPhail: Well, isn't that interesting? An ongoing operation. Here's what we know. The government has spent $14 million, much of it on lawyers and spin, preparing for the handover of B.C. Rail to CN, the new owner. But until today we didn't know that B.C. Rail is also spending $1 million a month on upgrades, including brand-new B.C. Rail trucks and vehicles before CN takes control. In fact, these vehicles are labelled as non–revenue generating, but they're shiny, they're new, and they're big.

Again to the Premier: can he tell the House why B.C. Rail is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a taxpayer-financed gift to CN in the form of brand-new B.C. Rail trucks and vehicles?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the member opposite would understand this. When there's a transaction that takes place, B.C. Rail has an ongoing operation and maintenance of its fleet. That's part of what the agreement would obviously have expected. You wouldn't have expected B.C. Rail to close down while we worked through the completion of this agreement. But let me say that within the next few days, I'm sure this agreement will be completed.

Within the next few days, there will be a billion dollars of private sector investment that will come into British Columbia. Within the next few days, we will begin opening up the north to opportunities, to passenger rail service, to gateway service in Prince George, to a new Prince Rupert terminal and port that will open up huge opportunities to Peace River farmers. Tourism will benefit. Northern communities will benefit. Regional communities will benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this. The B.C. Rail investment partnership is going to make a huge difference in the future of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: This is the government that said this deal would be done by March 31, 2004. This is a government that doesn't have a clue what's happening at B.C. Rail right now.

Here's the expenditure document for April 2004. According to this April 2004 status report…. It's about B.C. Rail capital spending. It was leaked to the opposition.

J. MacPhail: In the first four months of this year, B.C. Rail has spent $675,000 on brand-new vehicles for its yards, vehicles that are listed as non-revenue vehicles — pricey present to CN, a company that I'm sure can afford to buy its own shiny new trucks. It's just one more example of the B.C. Liberals keeping costs secret about how much this B.C. Rail deal is costing taxpayers. They're predicting that they will spend $1 million on these shiny new trucks. Again to the Premier…

J. MacPhail: …are these brand-new rail yard trucks and vehicles part of the contract of sale with CN, or did the government buy these for CN as another taxpayer-financed token of appreciation for helping B.C. Liberals break their election promise?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, I think the member opposite clearly doesn't understand that capital upgrade and maintenance budgets are part of an ongoing operation. The ongoing operation of B.C. Rail is obviously critical as we move forward.

Let me just say to the member opposite that the great thing about the B.C. Rail investment partnership is that the taxpayers won't have to pay a million dollars a month to upgrade equipment. The taxpayers won't have to invest in an upgrade of the system, because the private sector will be doing that. The private sector will be creating jobs in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, can we have order in the chamber, please, so that we may hear the questions asked and answered.

J. Kwan: In March of this year, the Minister of Children and Family Development told the House that she does not believe her ministry should be investigating every complaint that comes through the door or over the phone. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Children and Family Development if, as a result of 14 complaints filed by Kayla John's stepfather, the ministry followed the process for investigating complaints set out by Justice Gove. The minister did not answer the question yesterday. Does she have an answer today?

Hon. C. Clark: We investigate complaints that come through the door, through the phone and to social workers individually. We do that because we have an obligation to protect children.

For the family of that little girl, it must be impossible to try and go through every day knowing that their little girl isn't going to be coming home. As a parent, I know I look at my little boy every day, and I say to myself: "What are you going to be when you grow up?" I can't imagine contemplating what it would be like…

Hon. C. Clark: …to look at him and say: "I wonder if you're going to come home today."

My sympathies go out to that family. It's so important that we make sure that the police investigation finds who did it and makes sure that they are brought to justice. We need to make sure that police investigation is able to continue without political interference, and I intend to make sure that happens.

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

J. Kwan: I have no doubt that every parent loves their children, and I cannot imagine for any parent anywhere, any step-parent anywhere, any foster parents anywhere to lose a child the way in which Kayla John was lost. I cannot imagine the pain and the grief that individuals would have to go through. I'm not even sure whether or not they could recover from that.

Let me just say this. The question that I put to the minister is a critical question. We're not asking for any personal or confidential details in this tragic case that would compromise the investigation or compromise the privacy of this family. What we're asking is if children are falling through the cracks in the ministry's investigative procedures, and we're asking if the ministry followed correct procedures — procedures that were set down to protect children from abuse and neglect.

I remind the minister that Justice Gove said that any complaint, no matter what its source, must be fully investigated. As a result of the government's major restructuring and major budget cuts at a time when everybody said they should not be cutting the ministry to the degree that they are, I am afraid that children might be falling through the cracks.

J. Kwan: The question for the minister is: can the minister assure this House that she has ordered a full investigative review of how the complaints were handled to assess whether or not Judge Gove's recommendations were followed or ignored?

Hon. C. Clark: I can tell the member this. When there are concerns and issues raised about our ministry, we always make sure that we get to the bottom of them.

I can tell the member this. We will take seriously any concerns that are raised with us in particular about this case. But I can't tell the member whether or not we are engaged with this family without compromising their privacy. The member can stand up and say she is seeking information that won't compromise the police investigation, but unless she knows what that information is, she can't know that that won't be the outcome.

It would be absolutely irresponsible to say anything publicly that might make it harder to bring to justice the person or people who did this. That family deserves to know and everybody in that small community deserves to know how this happened so that we can help them make sure that it doesn't happen again.

In Zeballos the case is this. There has been no reduction in the number of social workers that serve Zeballos from Port Hardy. In addition to that, the member should know that the number of children who have come into the care of the ministry has dropped by 15 percent, and the number of social workers across the province has dropped by less than 10 percent.

Hon. C. Clark: We know, based on the workload model, that the workload level is actually dropping for social workers across the province….

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary.

J. Kwan: The question that I put to the minister is a procedural question. It's about whether or not the minister followed proper procedures regarding the Kayla John case. The minister should answer the question to the affirmative or deny that an administrative review has been ordered. It's that simple. British Columbians want to know whether or not the government is doing its job making sure that children do not fall through the cracks. Did the minister order an administrative review or not — yes or no?

Hon. C. Clark: The member can quite cavalierly ask me to provide her with information saying she knows that it won't affect the police investigation. But I can't give her information that would impact that, and I can't give her information that might make it harder to bring to justice the individual who did this.

Hon. C. Clark: The family of this child — and the family of this child extends throughout that entire tiny community — deserves to know that the individual who did this and that the unspeakable, unimaginable crime that was committed is addressed by our justice system so we can make sure the individual who did this isn't walking the streets in that community or in any community in British Columbia.

R. Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Education. B.C.'s first French immersion program started in my riding of Coquitlam. French immersion enrolment is now at an all-time high in this province. This enrolment is destined to grow as more families come to appreciate the many benefits of having their children attend a French immersion program.

Can the minister tell me what we are doing to ensure that a child who wants to attend a French immersion program can do so in B.C.? How will our government ensure that there are enough teachers able to teach French immersion available to meet this demand?

Hon. T. Christensen: I thank the member for the question. It's true that French immersion programs throughout the province are a great example of choice programs that are offered here in public schools in British Columbia. As the provincial government has encouraged school districts to respond to the requests of parents and students around the province, we've actually seen the number of French immersion programs increase. In fact, this last year we have nine new French immersion programs in the province in eight different school districts. French immersion is something that a lot of parents are demanding, and it is increasing.

We're also working with the federal government and Simon Fraser University to add French language post-secondary programs and build on those at Simon Fraser University so that our teachers in training have greater exposure to French programs so they will be better prepared, once they graduate, to join their colleagues in teaching French immersion throughout British Columbia.

J. Bray: British Columbia's Framework for Action for HIV/AIDS states as one of its main goals the reduction in the number of new infections and reducing the spread of HIV. Now, I've had several meetings with community organizations in my riding, and they're asking whether the province will be matching funds to meet the goals of the B.C. Framework for Action on HIV/AIDS. Can the Minister of Health Services please tell me what is being done to assist community-based AIDS organizations in helping to prevent the spread of HIV?

Hon. C. Hansen: The provincial health officer estimates that we spend in excess of about $100 million a year on programs for prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS in this province. On a per-capita basis we are the highest in Canada, which is understandable given that we do have the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS. But I think the point that the member raises is very important because we continue to see HIV/AIDS spread in our communities. We continue to see that it is a challenge not just for the traditional groups that have suffered from HIV/AIDS, but in fact we see it throughout the whole province geographically, and we see it through a variety of different communities.

We are putting money into contracting community-based services — about $12 million a year. There's about $37 million a year funded through the Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS for their programs, and we continue to put more money into public health follow-up for both education and partner notification. We will continue to work on that, and I welcome the ongoing input from the member.

Hon. G. Collins: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to present the reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004, on all amounts borrowed by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity in fiscal 2003-04.

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't intend to make any opening statement, but I'm glad to answer any questions from any members.

J. MacPhail: I'll take this opportunity to set the stage for my questions to the Premier from the opposition. With only a year left in the Premier's mandate, I think it's useful to spend a few moments before I go into that debate recapping the Premier's record.

Three years ago the Premier won an overwhelming mandate on a promise of hope and prosperity, on a promise of government integrity, on a promise to improve health and education, on a promise of good management. Three years later not only have those promises not been fulfilled; they have actually been broken. Three years after being swept to power with the largest majority in history, B.C. is a more polarized and less confident province than it has been in recent memory.

Unemployment is higher. Compared to the rest of Canada, paycheques are smaller. Health wait-lists have skyrocketed. They're at a 26 percent increase and growing. Labour relations are poisoned, and questions swirl about police raids on the Legislature, about the B.C. Liberal friends and insiders getting special deals, and about a Premier that has lost the moral high ground and lost the trust of a large majority of British Columbians.

The Premier promised to change politics, transcend old divisions and restore integrity to government, yet he has failed on all those accounts, reinforcing patterns of polarization that have infected our political system for far too long. Instead of seeing in his mandate an opportunity to bring people together around common goals and shared aspirations for a better society, he has used his mandate to force a narrow ideological agenda upon this province, pitting British Columbians against each other in the process — some of which we just saw today from the Liberal caucus in members' statements.

Instead of reaching out and listening, he has closed his eyes and ears to the tremendous anger and frustration his government is causing. He has refused to accept criticism or to explain his actions. He has refused to admit mistakes or to change direction. From the broken promise on B.C. Rail to his broken promise on health care to his broken promise on integrity in government, the Premier has lost his way, and now it appears he is out of ideas, out of solutions and out of steam.

The current session started in a climate of scandal and rising concern about the direction of this government. Three and a half months later it ends on the same note. The government's agenda this session is as thin as it is tired. Little that was brought before us for debate suggests that the Premier has been able to renew his vision for B.C. or restore confidence in his mandate. Instead we were treated to minor tinkering and increasingly desperate promises of the coming prosperity pushed off further and further into the future. The new era promised has become the new era deferred — now at least to the 2010 games. This is not what British Columbians voted for, and it is certainly not what they deserve.

If politics is a debate about competing visions of the future, the vision on offer from this government and this Premier is more of the same — more conflict, more polarization, more division, and less hope and opportunity for the vast majority of British Columbians who work hard, pay their taxes and want a compassionate, fiscally responsible and responsive government in return.

In 364 days the Premier's mandate will have run its course, and British Columbians will have a choice between two very different approaches to government and two different visions of the future: the Premier's fundamentally pessimistic view of the capacity for British Columbians to work together to achieve positive change and the other vision of a prosperous, inclusive society — or a new vision that seeks to transcend old division and that unites British Columbians around common objectives. This is a government that works explicitly for the few or a competing vision of a government that works for all; a government that is exclusive, stubborn and increasingly out of touch or an alternate vision of a government that makes its first priority to reflect the values of the people it serves.

In 364 days British Columbians will have a fundamental choice. The opposition, having learned from past mistakes, is committed to providing the kind of responsible, compassionate and modern government that British Columbians are demanding. Mr. Chair, the countdown to change has begun; 364 days to go. I look forward to the debate that will ensue. What symbolizes this government's division from the public is the Premier himself and how the Premier conducts himself in public. What security services does the Premier receive beyond that provided by the legislative Sergeant-at-Arms staff?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me respond to some of those opening comments. I understand that there is, in fact, going to be a choice in 364 days, and I think one of the critical things about that choice is to enter into a civil debate about the direction the province is going in and what actually has been accomplished. The member opposite talks about positive change, and I am proud

of the positive changes that this government has brought in for the people of British Columbia. It's not myself, but it's others.

There are many, many third parties who have pointed out that, in fact, we are finally back on track in the province and that we have an opportunity to build a future that's full of hope and opportunity for British Columbians. Over the last few weeks I've visited over 50 communities and talked to them about what their goals are and what their objectives are.

It's critical, I think, that most people understand that you don't build a positive future on a foundation of debt and deficits. You don't build a positive future without bringing British Columbians together, without moving forward on the basis of their dreams and their goals and objectives. In 64 communities, 64 different times, I've visited towns outside of Vancouver and the capital regional district.

There is a new optimism in British Columbia. It's an optimism that's reflected by groups that are as independent as Moody's, who's pointed…. There's a positive economic outlook that reflects improved fiscal framework that's been developed in recent years. There are improved opportunities and excitement in the small business community of this province. For the first time in ten years we actually have small business communities and small businesses growing in British Columbia, at almost 10 percent this year and an expected 10 percent next year. We have the small business community in British Columbia having more confidence in their future than any other province in the country.

We also have a situation where people are recognizing that British Columbia's record for job creation is, frankly, second to none over 2002-03, and we're looking forward to an even more impressive 2004. While the member opposite may want to spread her message of doom and let's go back to the 1990s, I can tell you this, Mr. Chair. In British Columbia we are moving forward. We are moving forward in every critical area of government activity.

For example, this is a government, unlike any previous government in the history of the province — unlike any previous government in the history of the country — that has said to citizens: "You set the rules for electing people." The Citizens' Assembly has been recognized, not just in Canada but around the world, for the initiative this government took, for an undertaking this government made and for an undertaking this government is following through on, because we know that's how you restore people's confidence in our public institutions.

This government, unlike any previous government, decided that we were going to inform citizens about when an election would be held. We set an election date so that the member opposite and all of those who support her can know exactly when the election will be held and when people will make their choice. They will make a choice about their future, and that's going to be critical as we move ahead.

Let's look at some of the things that the member opposite said. She talks about a poisoned labour climate. Well, when the member opposite's party was in government, I should point out there were 51 work stoppages in 1999 and 80 in the year 2000. In 2001 there were 41. When this government had a full year of operation, it was 18. Last year, 2003, it was eight. If you want to talk about the public sector, I think it's important to remember — although the member opposite would certainly like us to focus on the minority of negotiations that we weren't able to complete — there were 37 agreements made between public sector workers and this government working to build a stronger future for British Columbia and the people who live here. That's, I believe, the direction that everyone expects us to take.

The member opposite talks about health care. Let me tell you that the health reforms we've made in British Columbia are recognized across the country. When you take 52 agencies and bring them down to six and you start reinforcing and focusing resources that people send into the system on care for patients, it makes a difference. There were 38,000 additional procedures that we had last year over the year before. Those 38,000 additional procedures were for people. They focused those resources on patients, and that's certainly what we should do.

I think the member opposite knows, and I think the public knows we are living in a world where there are significant demographic changes taking place. We have an aging society, and when you look at one of the most critical services that we have and that the province provides — health care — we know that aging society creates additional pressures in the health care system.

We also have, at the other end of the demographic spectrum, a shrinking number of people of school age. We have to make sure that we're dealing with them. We're focusing our resources on those students in the classrooms.

To do that, we have to have a strong private sector economy. Now, I understand that the previous government was not nearly as enthusiastic about the private sector economy as this government is, but I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that we already know the private sector economy in British Columbia is moving ahead. We know it's creating new jobs for people. We know it's creating jobs for people in the mining sector, which was devastated by the last government. We know it's expanding at an incredible rate in the oil and gas sector. We know, in fact, in this economy….

I was just visiting Campbell River the other day, and a fellow came to me and said: "You know, we've got a whole new set of problems right now." I said: "What's that?" He said: "People are going to work. We can't find enough workers to do the work we need in our forest sector." I had the mayor of a community saying: "For the first time in six years I have people moving into our community." Instead of people, when they have to move or decide to move, wondering whether they'll ever be able to sell their home — the most important asset they have — people now know they can

sell their homes. They are getting the resources they need so that they have control over their lives.

As we move ahead in the province, we will move ahead with a government that focuses on care for patients, a government that focuses on creating an education system that's second to none and a government that focuses on opening up opportunity. Let me just say that I recognize, as I'm sure the member opposite does, that it's no small task to get a financial house in order when for over a decade that house has been mismanaged. It's no small task to rebuild a foundation for the future when the foundation from the past was devastated by the mismanagement of a previous government. I recognize that.

Were there tough choices that we had to make? Of course there were tough choices we had to make. Were they the right choices to make? We certainly hope they were. We hope they were the right choices to make, because everyone in the government — as is everyone in the opposition, I'm sure — is doing their best to do what's best for British Columbians. We are doing our best to do what's best for British Columbia families. I can tell you that as we move forward over the next 364 days and beyond, we're looking forward to engaging British Columbians in a discussion about the kind of future they want.

They will have a choice. They can choose to go back to the 1990s. They can choose to go back to the people who say: "Oh, we've learned; we've learned. Don't worry. It won't happen again." It's all exactly the same people, with exactly the same message, with exactly the same amount of selfishness that we saw throughout the nineties that took our province — a province that I was born in — and took the hope away from those people.

In British Columbia people are excited about being proud of their communities again. They're excited about being proud of their jobs if they're in mining again. They're excited about being proud of their jobs if they're in the forest sector. They're excited about making sure that they create communities that are long-term and sustainable and healthy for their families to grow up in. This government is excited about that too.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm glad that the Premier finally had the fortitude to get up and make an opening statement. He declined until I made one. That's all very well and good, but could he answer my question, please?

Hon. G. Campbell: As we canvassed last year in estimates, the budget for the Premier's security comes from the RCMP police force, and it is not disclosed.

J. MacPhail: Oh, the Minister of Finance says that nor was it under our previous government. Believe you me, Mr. Chair, the question never needed to be asked, because there was no obvious security. The question never needed to be asked.

Hon. G. Campbell: I have a certain temptation in how I should answer this question, but I'm not going to answer it that way.

On September 11, 2001, there was a substantial amount of concern raised about security — not just my security but other people's security. The RCMP do have security in British Columbia, and they do have a security force that is responsible for the Premier. They also have one in Ontario. They also have one — not the RCMP — in the province of Quebec. It's not the RCMP in Ontario; it's the provincial police force. They also have in Alberta.

Unfortunately, security is required, according to the RCMP. I follow the directions of the RCMP. As I said last year, that budget is not disclosed. If the member has questions which she'd like to ask of the RCMP, they will, I'm sure, tell her what they can. It's not something that I have available to me or that is appropriate to disclose.

J. MacPhail: Isn't it interesting? At the same time that the Premier is justifying his security expenses because of September 11, 2001, the Finance minister and the Attorney General are heckling that it's the HEU's fault that the Premier needs security. Maybe they'd like to get their message straight. The Finance minister is saying: "It's your friends in the HEU that are causing the security problem." The Attorney General is back there heckling: "Let's see. HEU donates to the NDP — security." My gosh, aren't they helpful? Aren't those two senior ministers of this Premier's cabinet helpful?

The Premier tries to claim it's about terrorism; that requires increased security. The Finance minister bully boy and the AG bully boy say…

The Chair: Member. Member, please. Your language is unparliamentary. Will you please retract it.

J. MacPhail: Let's just be clear. If they're going to have the peanut gallery here, if the Premier's going to have the peanut….

The Chair: Member, your terminology is completely unparliamentary. Please try to maintain the rules of the House.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I will try greatly, and I am trying greatly. I very much appreciate a Chair who's balanced and fair — very much.

The Chair: Member, take your seat, please. I do not want to have you question the Chair or challenge the Chair. You have a full opportunity to follow the estimates debate here. We are working on vote 8. Please stay focused on vote 8.

J. MacPhail: Are these services provided by police or through a contract to the RCMP?

Hon. G. Campbell: The RCMP set the standards for security, the RCMP are responsible for the security, and the RCMP direct the security.

J. MacPhail: What is the area of security that covers the Premier? What are the areas of responsibility of the Premier that are covered by security?

J. MacPhail: Well, is it the Premier acting in his capacity as Premier, his capacity as MLA, his capacity inside the province only, outside the province?

Hon. G. Campbell: The RCMP make judgments as to whether or not they believe it is necessary for them to be in attendance with the Premier. The security is provided to the office of the Premier, and as I said last year, it is something that in fact is not appropriate to disclose.

Let me say to the member opposite that I understand that the…. I think it's important that we scrutinize these things, but I also think it's important that we scrutinize them within the public framework that's established. The Premier's protection detail that's established by the RCMP is done not to use dollars of the taxpayer unnecessarily. It's to make sure that the Premier of the province is protected.

J. MacPhail: These are taxpayer dollars being spent that weren't spent previously, so these are legitimate questions.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am an MLA. There is no question about it. The reason that there is security provided is because I also hold the office of the Premier.

J. MacPhail: Does the RCMP provide security to the Premier or to government members as well as the Premier?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I understand it, the RCMP would provide security to any government members that need it. I can't answer for what happens with other government members. I can tell you that they do provide security and security advice to myself.

J. MacPhail: Does the Premier receive security when he's in his Vancouver constituency office, for instance?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, the reason that security is provided…. It's provided by the RCMP. It's provided to me as Premier of the province, and they make choices as to where they are providing me security and where they are not. Obviously, one of the things that they would be concerned about is that security information be kept by them. That's important, I think, in terms of the task that they've set for themselves.

The RCMP themselves have said that it is their responsibility. They accept the responsibility. If there are questions about security, they should go to the RCMP, not to me.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm not quite sure how the minister would know that the public knows that or, indeed, that I should know that. I'm going to actually check the record from last year to see what debate we had about this. The Premier seems to think that we canvassed all this last year.

Let me ask this question. The Finance minister and the Attorney General say it's because of the HEU that the Premier needs security. How does the RCMP know to provide security? Who does the RCMP liaise with in the Premier's office?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I'm sure the member opposite is aware, once you're elected, you're elected seven days a week and 24 hours a day. These matters were not covered specifically, I don't believe, in my estimates last year. They were covered extensively in the estimates of the Solicitor General last year.

The RCMP has said quite clearly that, in fact, if there are questions with regard to security, they should be directed to the RCMP, not to me. The whole purpose of the security is to make sure it's there and that it's confidential so that it can be effective.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I just asked the Premier…. The Premier is saying to me that the timing and amount of security is up to the RCMP. I do not recall canvassing these matters before or hearing it discussed in the public at all.

Now the Premier is saying that he's Premier for seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Does that mean, then, security is provided during that period of time?

Hon. G. Campbell: I fully recognize and admit that we have security for the Premier. As I mentioned earlier, if there are specific questions that the member opposite has with regard to security, I would direct them to the RCMP. They have a responsibility to provide, and they have accepted the responsibility of providing that protection for myself. They use their judgment on when it's provided and how it's provided.

I can't tell you how they get all of their intelligence. It would be inappropriate for me to tell you how they get all of their intelligence. I can tell you that I am guided by their direction and by their recommendations. That is the purpose of having this. I think it's critical for us to recognize that and reflect on that.

J. MacPhail: This is a substantially new expenditure under this Premier. I'm quite taken aback that this government doesn't want to answer any of these questions, like who it is that the RCMP liaises with.

It came as quite a surprise to the public and the Solicitor General when the Vancouver police chief said that terrorism was a threat, when he made those comments a few weeks ago. The provincial government didn't know about that. In fact, it was quite a controversial statement that the Vancouver police chief made about terrorism being a threat, and it certainly came as a surprise to the provincial government cabinet that he was making that statement.

That surprise expressed led me to the fact…. What is it that the Premier is being made secure from and tax dollars are being spent on? I thought this was the perfect time to ask these questions, because I expect that the expenditures are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars — if not in seven-figure expenditures — annually. I think the public has a right to know why that is necessary — not the details.

Of course everybody wants the Premier and all officials to be secure. To use that as a reason to say that there is no legitimate area to ask about why the expenditures or the amount of expenditures is to be unnecessarily adversarial. Mr. Chair, I'm not allowed to use…. I've been limited in my vocabulary here. The Premier won't even admit about whether those expenditures are going up or down.

If the Premier travels out of the province, is there a different protocol from when he is in the province?

The Chair: Member, please. Let's keep the debate down between the two members.

Hon. G. Campbell: What we do is take advice from the RCMP on how they believe the Premier's protection should be provided. I consistently take advice from the RCMP. I note that there were almost ten and a half hours of discussion with the Solicitor General. This could have been canvassed fully there. But really, I think I've answered the question. If the member opposite has questions and queries, they can be directed to the RCMP.

I do not know how the RCMP gathers together its intelligence. I do know that the RCMP provides advice to us in the Premier's office about what we should do. The RCMP takes its responsibility seriously, as I hope they would, not just for me but for other people. I accept their advice, and we accept the service.

J. MacPhail: I will seek the Premier's advice on how I get this information from the RCMP. Perhaps he could guide me on how to get this information.

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, the member has every right to ask the RCMP. Any questions that come up that they feel they can answer will be answered. If they feel they can't be answered, they won't be answered. But that's their responsibility. I think that if a public figure — whether that public figure is the Premier of Alberta or Ontario or Quebec or the Premier of British Columbia — has a protection detail, we have a responsibility to listen to the advice of the people that take on the responsibility for that protection. That's what we do with the RCMP. The RCMP have been very clear. If there are questions, they should be directed to the RCMP.

R. Masi: It is my pleasure today to introduce 54 students and 17 adults and their teachers, Ms. Adams and Ms. Green, from Hellings Elementary in North Delta. And a fine group of students it is.

J. MacPhail: Let me just put on the record. The tactics used by the government front benches on this are reprehensible, I must say — somehow, through their heckling, alleging I am threatening the Premier or putting someone at risk by asking these questions. I say that is just simply unacceptable for them to take that point of view. We want everyone to be safe. We want everyone, though, to be able to have access to their politicians. We believe in free and open access to their politicians when there is no threat. But it is under this Premier that the security costs have skyrocketed, with no evidence of terrorist activity or activities of post-9/11 security. His own front benches accused the rabble-rousers of the HEU as being the problem, including the Attorney General.

All we want to know is what it is costing taxpayers to have that confrontation continue — that confrontational point of view. How much is it costing taxpayers for them to continue to suggest somehow that there is a threat caused by something other than their own actions?

Hon. G. Campbell: It depends, but generally speaking, over the last little while we have actually been travelling by charter. The charter has allowed us to touch down in more communities more expeditiously. It allows for not just the staff complement that are normally with me but also the other cabinet ministers or whatever, and it is the most cost-effective way of travelling.

J. MacPhail: How much did the Premier's office spend on travel in '03-04, and what's the budget for '04-05?

Hon. G. Campbell: I apologize, Mr. Chair, and through you to the member. We don't have the specific breakdown. I can tell you that the budget for '04-05 is $335,000. For my personal travel up to March 31, '03, it was $118,215, which included approximately $33,000 for the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations.

J. MacPhail: The Premier just said that it was more cost-effective to charter a plane. Well, how does the Premier know that, if he can't even give me the figures about what he spent or what he is going to spend? Is there a study done to show that it is more cost-effective?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me give the member opposite an example. On Friday I met with the Lower Mainland Municipal Association, which was meeting in Whistler. I met with the North Central Municipal Association, which was meeting in Fort Nelson, and I met with the broadcasters association, which was meeting in Penticton. I would not have or no one would have been able to, in fact, meet with all of those groups in a timely way had we not had a charter. The charter carried myself, my press secretary and my deputy chief of staff. It carried the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and his assistant as well. If you look at those dollars in terms of what the costs would be if we were going by regular commercial flight, two things would have happened. Number one, we wouldn't have been able to make the meetings. Number two, it would have been more expensive.

J. MacPhail: I remember the Finance minister chiding me for using anecdotal evidence to justify a larger point — chided me terribly for that. The Finance minister said: "Oh, she gives a couple of examples, and then she extrapolates a point from that."

Was there a cost-benefit analysis done of shifting from commercial travel to charter travel? I take no position on this. I'm merely asking if there was a cost-benefit analysis done of it.

Hon. G. Campbell: The office is always aware of the costs and the benefits of each trip. For example, we did not, obviously, take a charter when we went to mainland China. We did not take a charter when we went to Guangzhou or when we went to India. Frankly, the charters are generally taken within the boundaries of British Columbia because of the situation that we face and, as I mentioned, because it is both timely and cost-effective. We do look at those things as we travel around the province.

J. MacPhail: Is there a contract with a charter for this upcoming fiscal year, for '04-05?

Hon. G. Campbell: No. We're always looking for the most cost-effective supplier of the service, and there are a number of contracts that are available throughout the province.

Hon. G. Campbell: Out of my scheduling office, there is work done to discover where we can get the most cost-effective deal. There are discussions that take place with those people on the basis of the time, availability and cost.

Hon. G. Campbell: It depends on the flight, but normally there would be myself, my press secretary, one RCMP officer and my deputy chief of staff. They would be the regular component — just so we're clear — depending on the task at hand, depending on what we're doing. It would depend on who was also in on the flight.

J. MacPhail: When I asked the Premier about whether any of this is tendered…. Could the Premier tell me the companies that have received business in '03-04 and the amount of business they received?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have that information, but it will be available in Public Accounts, as the member knows.

J. MacPhail: I'm always amazed when this government tries to refer me to Public Accounts. That's actually what estimates are for — for this kind of information.

What happens when a contract with a private plane service, a charter service, exceeds $25,000?

Hon. G. Campbell: We have indeed chartered with Pacific Coastal, Anderson Air, London Air and Conquest. Each time a charter is requested, we ask for costs.

I don't know the answer to this. I don't believe there would be any that have been over $25,000 for the Premier's office. I can check that for the member, but as the member knows, the public accounts give all of that information. They should be completed by the end of June. At this point I don't have that information.

J. MacPhail: Yeah. It's not going to be that helpful for the Premier to refer me to Public Accounts. That's only going to annoy me. I know that doesn't make any difference to him, except that this is the kind of information that is supposed to be made available during estimates.

The Premier said that most of his travel is done within B.C. on charter. All of his travel, or just some of it? What travel, if any, has been done by charter outside British Columbia?

Hon. G. Campbell: We shared a charter flight with Premier Klein in…. I'm trying to think of the date. It was for a meeting in Prince Edward Island. I don't recall the exact date.

J. MacPhail: When the Premier goes on official business inside British Columbia, is the plane ever used for side trips either by himself or by ministers?

J. MacPhail: Is the plane ever used for side trips beyond what the official business is or by ministers for either official or personal business?

J. MacPhail: How does the Premier account for that? We've heard of situations where there's been party business done while the Premier is on these trips. I'm just checking it out.

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't understand what the issue is that the member is raising. When the Premier travels in the province…. I travel in the province; I get to a destination. I carry out my official business. It may be that at times that official business is at the end of the day. I may meet with party members. I may talk with party members. That certainly is done, but the charter is not used to carry out party business. It's used for public business.

J. MacPhail: On the itinerary of travel, is the full amount…? Well, let me ask the Premier: has he, in '03-04 — or for the first six weeks of '04-05 — engaged in partisan activities after the completion of official business?

Hon. G. Campbell: There may be evenings on my personal time when I am dealing with people that are involved with the party. There's no question about that. I would be the last to deny that. Certainly, when I'm out around the province, I can tell you that…. I'm sure the member opposite would think that all the time I'm around the province, I'm actually engaged in partisan business. I am certainly talking with chambers of commerce. I'm talking with city councils. I'm talking with community leaders. I'm talking with people in the health care sector and the education sector. All of those things, I think, are critical to the public interest.

J. MacPhail: Yup. I'm not asking the Premier to be defensive at all. I'm just asking questions.

In filing for his travel expenses, are there distinctions between official business expenses and private expenses? How would we obtain that information?

Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite can rest assured that at no time would I bill private expenses. We are explicit about that. It is only public expenses that are ever billed.

J. MacPhail: I think the Premier misunderstands me again. Does the Premier file expenses that show the distinction between private and public?

Hon. G. Campbell: We file public expenses. That is what's expected; that is what's done. That is what's reviewed.

J. MacPhail: When the cabinet went to Alberta last fall — the Premier may remember that there was a summit in Alberta with the Alberta government under Premier Klein — how were expenses calculated for that? How did travel occur? What expenses were incurred? How much did the trip cost?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the member opposite is aware that I don't have all that detail on hand. My recollection, actually, is that I flew to that — what do you call it? — summit, the Alberta–British Columbia joint cabinet meeting, commercially. If the member wants more information on that, she can get that information in excruciating detail through the freedom-of-information and privacy process.

J. MacPhail: In fact, it's on the basis of an FOI request that I'm asking these questions, because they were not answered by the FOI request. These kinds of questions were denied because they were "out of scope" in our FOI request. Clearly, we didn't get the wording exactly right for it.

How much did the summit with Ralph Klein cost? I think that's a legitimate question. It was made a big deal by the Premier. He actually decided to do it while the House was sitting, even though he could have easily done it a couple of weeks before or during the break. How much did the summit cost B.C. taxpayers?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned, I don't have that information. The member can certainly ask through the FOI for all that information to be gathered. Let me tell you, though, Mr. Chair, and let me tell the member opposite that at the Alberta–British Columbia summit, in fact, we'll save B.C. taxpayers significant, significant resources. We have already got some joint projects going ahead on Highway 1; we're looking at joint projects on Highway 16. We're looking at the benefits of joint purchasing for textbooks; we're looking at the benefits of joint tourism promotion. We're looking at the benefits of working together and expanding oil and gas and energy opportunities in Alberta and in British Columbia. There are substantial

benefits that will be gleaned from that activity. We will be meeting again in Prince Rupert in a matter of days to discuss ongoing working together between British Columbia and Alberta.

I don't know the precise costs — the travel expenses and the hotel expenses, for example — of the Alberta–B.C. summit. But again, those costs can be garnered and gleaned and delivered upon receipt of an FOI request with specifics.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, why is the Premier referring me to public accounts or FOI? What makes that an open and transparent process of estimates?

Hon. G. Campbell: I would assume that the member would like complete information. I think the member clearly knows there are many ways we can assure that the public has the information that's required. Public accounts presents that information in its final audited form so that the public can understand that and she can. In terms of freedom of information and privacy, it's particularly there to make sure that detailed requests can be properly gathered together and the answers can be delivered in a public and open way. I'm sure the opposition member will take advantage of that.

J. Kwan: Part of the estimates process, of course, is to go through, with the Premier and with respective ministers, their budgets — how much they're allocating in each of the areas, how much they're spending in each of the areas, what was the spending in the previous year. It is an opportunity for all MLAs to canvass these kinds of questions with the Premier.

The questions that the opposition leader has put to the Premier to date are valid questions within the estimates process. They're completely within the scope. The Premier, of course, has been advised by the opposition leader that we'd tried to get some of that information through the FOI process and had been unsuccessful in getting some of that information.

Having said that, putting that process aside, through the estimates process the Premier should be responsible for his area of spending in his own ministry. In the Premier's office — in this instance, around travel — how much were particular costs, or where did it occur? How much were the costs for each trip? Those are valid questions — spent within the Premier's own budget.

For the Premier to refer the matter to public accounts, as the Chair of Public Accounts, I actually think the Premier should be able to do much better than that and should be forthcoming with information in the estimates process, where these questions are put to him appropriately.

Let's try again. Let's give another opportunity here for the Premier to be open and accountable and to be transparent, as he would like to claim that he is. How much money was spent on the trip with his cabinet colleagues to Calgary the first week of the House sitting?

Hon. G. Campbell: I have not questioned for a moment the opposition's questions. I have told the opposition where they can get the answers to those questions. The Public Accounts is one place for specific details of specific trips. That information can be explicitly acquired through freedom of information. The budget for travel in 2003-04 was $335,000. The budget for travel in 2004-05 is $335,000. My personal travel was approximately $85,000 in the year that ended 2003.

That information is there. It's openly available to people. You know, I can't add to the answers that I have already given.

J. Kwan: How many trips has the Premier made over the course of the year and to what destinations? Were they charter flights, were they commercial flights, and who went with him — for the course of the year, for last year and the beginning of this year, for the fiscal year?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think I've answered that question. It is not unusual for us to travel within the province through a charter. I am normally accompanied by my deputy chief of staff and executive assistant, by my press secretary, by at least one RCMP officer and, on many occasions, by cabinet ministers who are specifically involved in announcements being made or meetings being held throughout the province.

As I mentioned, our budget in 2003-04 was $335,000. I'm glad to go through for the member a number of the trips that I can recall. I certainly don't have a list of all of the trips that I have made in the last little while. To give the member opposite an idea, in the month of February of this year I visited Prince George, Kitimat, Terrace. In Kitimat we were dealing with the Summer Games. We visited Smithers, Houston, Dawson Creek, Groundbirch, Chetwynd, Moberly Lake, Hudson Hope, Fort St. John, Richmond, Surrey, Abbotsford, New Westminster, Duncan. By the way, Mr. Chair, I should tell you we didn't take a charter flight to New Westminster; we drove to New Westminster. Duncan, Port Alberni, Kelowna — all were travelled to in the month of February.

J. Kwan: I'm looking for those kinds of specifics from the Premier on all of his trips — those that are within British Columbia as well as those outside of the province; with whom he travelled; and what sort of flight arrangements, if they were required, the Premier used for those trips.

I can appreciate that the Premier does not have all of that information at his fingertips, but the opposition would like to receive a list from the Premier regarding his trips and with whom he travelled and which minister for the public record.

Hon. G. Campbell: I will endeavour to get the information for the member opposite that she is entitled to under freedom of information. I think it's a strange request, but I'm glad to provide that information.

J. Kwan: It is often the case, too, that where travel has taken place with another ministry or another minister, costs are shared. I would also like the Premier to identify whether or not costs have been shared, If so, what is the portion that has been cost-shared with another ministry?

J. MacPhail: I find it interesting that the Premier says we can get these kinds of specifics under the public accounts. Of course he knows that's not true. You can't get the details per trip. On his trip to Calgary with his cabinet, what events occurred that were not events related to meetings with the Alberta cabinet or government?

Hon. G. Campbell: My recollection of the meeting in Calgary was that we went to Calgary and met with Premier Klein and a number of his cabinet colleagues in an evening for dinner. We had the cabinet meeting, and we then came home. That's my recollection.

I know the members opposite regularly ask for my calendar. That outlines the events that I go to. I can't say what everyone does when they're at events like that, but I can tell you that's what I was doing. They have that information, and it has been made available to them upon their request in the past.

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure what the Premier is talking about — about us regularly asking for his calendar. This Premier refuses to give his calendar — ever. So I'm not sure what the Premier…. He's making all these allegations about this great access that we have to information, and it turns out he is wrong. We can't have any of that access.

Were there any meetings with industry representatives whose headquarters are in Alberta during that trip to meet with the Alberta cabinet?

Hon. G. Campbell: Is the member asking whether I met with anybody during the trip to Alberta?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think I outlined what I did during the trip to Alberta. I arrived in Alberta. The Alberta government hosted us to an evening meal. We attended the meal. I went to my room. The next morning we had a cabinet meeting, and I then came home. That's my recollection of the visit and the cabinet meeting with Alberta.

J. MacPhail: I take it that the Premier thinks we're being repetitive here. However, our FOI request clearly said that side trips or activities unrelated to the cabinet business were out of scope. Is the Premier now saying that there were no meetings with various industry representatives during that period of time, either of himself…? Clearly, he is saying no, he didn't. But what about his cabinet?

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Chair, first let me say I'm not trying to be argumentative with the member at all. She is welcome to ask the questions.

I can't tell you what the cabinet did following the dinner with the Alberta cabinet. I can tell you that the cabinet — those who were with me — was there at the dinner. Those who were with me were there at the cabinet meeting, and my recollection is that most of them travelled home at approximately the same time I did.

Did anyone meet with anyone from Alberta, with friends that they might have in Alberta? I don't know. Did the Minister of Energy and Mines maybe meet with some people in the oil and gas industry? I actually can't answer those questions, but I can tell you that the joint meeting with the cabinet of Alberta was beneficial to British Columbians. It was, I think, the first step in what will be many steps of working together to try and assure that British Columbia's economic future and fortunes are enhanced, to try and assure that we're meeting the needs of the province across the north.

I can still recall the first time that I met Premier Klein in Vancouver after he was Premier. He talked about the exceptional opportunity he thought Prince Rupert presented. That's great for us. The Prince Rupert port is going to be a huge opportunity for the northern part of our province. It certainly is going to be an enormous opportunity for Prince Rupert.

In terms of what other cabinet ministers did, I can't answer the question. I can tell you that from my perspective, my recollection of the trip was the dinner, a night's sleep, a cabinet meeting and a trip home.

J. MacPhail: What written confirmation do we have of agreements between Alberta and British Columbia arising out of that joint cabinet meeting?

Hon. G. Campbell: I believe we had a number of MOUs that came out of the joint B.C.–Alberta cabinet meeting. One was an MOU on transportation. I referred to that earlier. There was a savings in the millions of dollars in terms of some joint weigh scales that we were doing. There was an MOU on tourism and the potential for developing circle routes through Alberta and British Columbia. There was an MOU on health care. There was an MOU on purchasing textbooks for our schools in British Columbia. Those were all released at the time.

J. MacPhail: What's been the status of the MOUs since October? Could he report MOU by MOU?

Hon. G. Campbell: Progress has been made in a number of areas. In transportation, we've moved forward to the design stage for the weigh stations. Instead of having two weigh stations, there will be one that will meet the needs of British Columbia as well as Alberta. In terms of the common signage, we felt it made

sense to have one sign telling people what was taking place. We're moving forward with regard to that. Those should be established relatively quickly. They've gone through that process so there are electronic signs that will inform motorists of what's taking place in British Columbia or Alberta.

In terms of e-purchasing, that is proceeding. There is still work being done on that with the mutual Ministries of Education. The work that has been done in terms of the northwest corridor continues, in terms of both the tourism development of the northwest corridor and the potential for the Prince Rupert port.

There will be a number of initiatives that we will, hopefully, be able to bring to fruition when we meet with the Alberta cabinet in Prince Rupert; I think it's later this month. So we have made some significant and, I think, real progress with regard to that.

Hon. G. Campbell: The initial weigh station is Highway 1 in the Kicking Horse Canyon, and I think there's a second one that has been proposed for Highway 16. There may be a third one that's being proposed for Highway 3.

J. MacPhail: I assume all of these weigh stations will be on the British Columbia side. Where are they?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't be specific about which side of the border the weigh stations are on. The weigh stations will be put in the place that is the safest, most convenient and cost-effective for the motorists. They will meet the needs of British Columbia as well as the needs of Alberta.

J. MacPhail: What did the MOU say? Are these weigh stations on the Alberta side that will serve British Columbia? I'm trying to figure out what the benefit is here to British Columbia. So of the three weigh stations that are planned, how many will be on the British Columbia side, creating jobs for British Columbia?

Hon. G. Campbell: The MOU does not go specifically into detail of location. The MOU says that our Ministries of Transportation will work together to maximize the benefits to British Columbia and Alberta. I believe the estimated savings in terms of capital was approximately $1 million for British Columbia in terms of replacing the weigh station that we were having to do and an ongoing operating savings of around $100,000 a year.

I want to be clear, though, to the member opposite that that's my recollection. In terms of the detail of that, I would be glad to get the member, as I mentioned, both the MOUs and the details of the progress we've made with regard to the MOUs.

Are those savings — capital savings and operating savings — because Alberta is paying for the costs of a weigh station on the B.C. side? Or is it that there will be no weigh station on the B.C. side and that Alberta will offer the services and create the jobs? Which is it?

Hon. G. Campbell: The short answer is that both the province of Alberta and the province of British Columbia will be recognizing a savings by working together. As I mentioned, I think the savings will be on the order of $1 million in capital by us combining our needs — by looking at our needs and seeing where we have common needs and where we can move forward and do better for British Columbians as well as Albertans. We expect to save about $1 million. Alberta probably expects to save about $1 million.

I think the sort of commonsense answer to this question is…. You can build two state-of-the-art weigh stations to meet one need, or you can build one state-of-the-art weigh station to meet one need. We decided to build one. We decided to do it in concert between the Ministry of Transportation in Alberta and the Ministry of Transportation in British Columbia. I think that's actually what people would expect us to do.

There are true savings for British Columbia in capital. There are true savings for British Columbia in operation. I'm sure there are true savings for Alberta in capital and in operation, or they wouldn't have agreed to it.

J. MacPhail: I assume that because the Premier knows of the savings, he knows where the weigh stations are going to be. Where are the weigh stations going to be, or when will we know? The Premier stands up and says there are going to be all these savings, and yet, "Oh, but I'm sorry; we're not going to give you any specifics" — likes to announce the fairyland good news but not the details. I mean, is it that difficult?

Well, let me ask this. How far down the road are these anticipated savings so that we'd actually know where the weigh stations are going to be?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again let me say to the member opposite that we are glad to provide her with the MOU. As I mentioned earlier, they are moving to design, to a request for proposal. The proposal will be explicit. Was it done the day we said: "Let's get together and see if we could manage this"? The answer is no.

What we agreed was that we would bring together this opportunity, we would review it, we would go to request for proposal, and we would build the facility where it was the most cost-effective on behalf of both British Columbians and Albertans. It's exactly what we would expect it to be.

When the Ministries of Transportation have completed their review and moved forward with the request for proposal, I am sure it will designate where the buildings should be built, where the weigh station should be built and how they will be delivered. We will then get a request for proposal that will be public.

The member opposite and all the members of the public will have a chance to see it.

When this memorandum of understanding was signed, the estimates were that we would save approximately $1 million in capital and approximately $100,000 in operations. We will get those final numbers when we've completed the project. We are in the midst of doing that now.

The member opposite said to me: "Can you tell us exactly where it is?" I can tell you it's in the Kicking Horse area and the Dawson Creek area that we're looking at joint operations. We think they will be beneficial. The MOU was signed between British Columbia and Alberta providing for joint operations of weigh scales at the border.

Now, you know, if we're looking at Highway 1, there are some places close to the border where I'm sure that weigh scale will be. For the joint Golden facility, a design consultant is developing a project plan for that joint facility, and it will be at Golden. That is in British Columbia.

There are 13 potential sites along the Highway 1 corridor, I have just been informed. They were evaluated, and a preferred site location has been agreed to in the Donald area adjacent to the Big Bend Highway 23 kilometres west of Golden. Ongoing discussions are taking place between the B.C. Solicitor General's staff and the Alberta commercial vehicle staff to identify specific needs related to the new facility, including site layout and building design criteria.

Discussions are ongoing with stakeholders — including the town of Golden, the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, the Golden and Area Community Economic Development Society and the B.C. Trucking Association — to identify issues and concerns related to relocating the scale. A public open house has been scheduled in Golden for May 20, 2004. Upon agreement of the final design by both jurisdictions, construction will be tendered approximately in August of this year, with completion scheduled for the summer of 2005.

J. MacPhail: That's great. Thank you for the information. I really appreciate it. That's what these discussions are all about, so thank you to the staff.

Now what about textbook purchases? That's an interesting concept because, of course, curricula are different between Alberta and British Columbia. How is that MOU working on textbook purchases?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me table the memorandum of understanding between British Columbia's and Alberta's Ministries of Transportation.

With regard to the textbook operations, it's important to note that it is a…. In terms of that, it's an optional arrangement for the people of….

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. If you're going to give the details of that, if you don't mind getting me a copy of it as well, so that I can answer it.

School boards will have the opportunity to join with Alberta in what is a special volume purchasing arrangement. There's no mandatory requirement here. If there is an opportunity for school boards to save resources, they will be able to. There is no requirement for a particular textbook. It's an opportunity for them to use a purchasing facility which may save them money.

J. MacPhail: Could the Premier provide us with details of the Prince Rupert meeting — when it is and what's the agenda?

Hon. G. Campbell: I believe the meeting in Prince Rupert is around the 25th of this month. I'll confirm that for the member tomorrow if she's interested in that. Some of the items we will be discussing for certain…. We're in Prince Rupert for a reason. As I mentioned, it was the province of Alberta who actually…. Well, I'll look into that.

The Prince Rupert port is an opportunity for us to open up that port in terms of containerization. It's an opportunity for us to open the port for cruise ship facilities. As the member opposite may know, this year cruise ship activities are up ten times over last year. That's a positive economic sign for their community.

I just got a note here that the meeting is on the 26th of this month, Mr. Chair.

We will also be preparing ourselves for the meeting with the western Premiers, which will take place in June. We will be discussing the northern corridor in more ways than simply the Prince Rupert port. The connections along Highway 16, the Yellowhead Highway and the opportunities that presents for communities throughout British Columbia as well as for opportunities in Alberta….

We're going to focus quite a bit on ports themselves, on port competitiveness. There's a lot of opportunity there for Prince Rupert to pick up on some of the benefits, I think, from servicing the needs of prairie farmers. That's one of their goals with containerization. As the member knows, we're looking at about a $30 million contribution to the containerization efforts that Prince Rupert is doing.

I'm sure we will have a discussion and an update on the BSE file — what's taking place with that, how we're able to manage it, what we can do that will help us move forward with regard to that.

There will be a significant part of the meeting where we will discuss health care. As the member may know, the Council of the Federation has established a major focus on health care reform and opportunities for the future to build a long-term, sustainable Canada Health Act that builds on the competitive advantages that the Canada Health Act provides us and that creates opportunities for us to deal with issues like human resources, technology growth, Pharmacare and the cost controls of those issues. That will be critical in the long term as we work with whoever is in the federal government to try and assure that the Canada health system is there for the people who live here.

There will be ample opportunity for us to have a great number of discussions, including updates on the memorandums of understanding we agreed to last year.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the Premier's office could provide us with those MOUs in time for tomorrow's estimates on those discussions so that we can have more discussion. I'm very interested in seeing what the MOUs dealt with around the Prince Rupert port, and I will not be able to ask questions without the MOU pertaining to that. Is it possible for the Premier to provide those for tomorrow?

Hon. G. Campbell: The MOUs were available and were public. I'm sure we can gather them together. Let me say that the Prince Rupert port specifically was not part of the agenda last time. It is part of the agenda that we will be talking about in the meeting that is coming up on the 26th.

J. MacPhail: When the Premier referred to cruise ship traffic being up by ten times — so that's like a 1,000 percent increase — is he referring to in Prince Rupert? The only article I read was that a major cruise ship line was doing nothing but a technical docking there.

Hon. G. Campbell: In Prince Rupert there has been a tenfold increase in cruise ship passengership that they're expecting this year.

J. MacPhail: Okay, I'm sorry — expecting? So could the Premier give the exact numbers, please?

Hon. G. Campbell: No, I don't have the exact numbers. I'm glad to get that information for the member.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Could I also ask the Premier…? Well, the Premier said there was no MOU on the Prince Rupert port. Is the province of British Columbia making a proposal to the Alberta government regarding the Prince Rupert Port Authority? I'm not asking for the details. I'm asking if they're going to be making a proposal, because of course as you know, Mr. Chair, the province is contributing, I think, $17 million to an upgrade of the Prince Rupert Port Authority. This government is relying on about another $50 million from the federal government before any activity can start. Is there any proposal being made to the Alberta government around cost-sharing for the Prince Rupert Port Authority?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, the Alberta government has for a number of years been interested in the opportunities that are presented by the northern corridor. The northern corridor is both a highway corridor and a rail corridor. It is potentially a tourism corridor as well. Certainly, I'm sure the people in Alberta would be glad to see cruise ships, people disembarking from cruise ships and deciding to drive across our north to the north of Alberta.

We have funded a joint economic opportunity study with Alberta in terms of the northern corridor. We will have a chance to review that study with Alberta and to see if there is mutual benefit in British Columbia and Alberta moving forward together. That certainly will be part of the discussions we have in Prince Rupert.

J. MacPhail: Can the Premier make available to us the agenda for the meeting on May 26?

Hon. G. Campbell: The agenda will be made available with the media advisory before the meeting on the 26th. I should inform the member that the MOUs that we have been discussing are on line. They were announced and put on line on October 8, 2003.

J. MacPhail: Well, we'll certainly do our best to go on line and get it. I'm sure that we've got resources equal to the Premier's office, or one would expect — the way this government treats us, referring us to everything — that they assume the same thing. Unfortunately, it's not true.

Now, the service plan has an interesting change in it. No, I'm sorry — not the service plan. It's actually from the estimates description of the Premier's office relating to the public affairs bureau. Here's how the vote description for the public affairs bureau read last year: "Transfers may be provided to Crown corporations, ministries, other levels of government, special offices and private bodies for advertising and other communications-related activities." That was part of the vote description for the public affairs bureau. That line is no longer there in this year's vote description. Why?

Hon. G. Campbell: If the member could just repeat what's been removed, I can have another look at it, but my answer at this point is that there is no reason I'm aware of. I imagine it was a technical reason that was established by the EFO for Management Services.

J. MacPhail: The vote description last year for the public affairs bureau read: "Transfers" — meaning transfers from the public affairs bureau budget — "may be provided to Crown corporations, ministries, other levels of government, special offices and private bodies for advertising and other communications-related activities." That's been removed.

The reason I'm asking this question is because previously the government made a big deal that all communications funds from the ministries and public bodies and Crown corporations — well, not Crown corporations, but the ministries' direct public service communications funds — had been relegated to the public affairs bureau. Last year's line was to then suggest that some of the money relegated to the public affairs bu-

reau could be transferred to these other bodies, but that the communications budget — the public affairs budget — across government was within the public affairs bureau. In fact, we hear the Minister of Health Services stand up day after day saying: "Oh, the millions of dollars that the government is spending on health advertising doesn't come out of the Health Services budget; it comes out of the public affairs bureau budget."

With the removal of this line that talks about transfers from the public affairs bureau — the removal that there are now no constraints — it leads me to ask whether there are other areas within government expenditures, other areas in other ministries, where they have direct funding from their ministries or public bodies for work that was previously done within the public affairs bureau budget.

Hon. G. Campbell: If the question that the member opposite is trying to get to is whether we have moved dollars out of the public affairs budget, the answer is no. We have not moved dollars out of the public affairs budget.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for that, but that's not the question. The question is: is this government saying that all communications expenditures across government are contained within the public affairs bureau budget for '04-05?

Hon. G. Campbell: There has been no change in the policy of the government. All communication that's done for ministries is done within the PAB budget.

How much of the public affairs bureau budget is being spent on advertising in '04-05?

Hon. G. Campbell: The advertising budget for '04-05 is the second lowest it has been in 15 years. It is approximately $11.9 million.

J. MacPhail: So $11.9 million in advertising in '04-05. How much of the public affairs bureau budget is being spent on the Spirit of 2010 advertising campaign?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have the individual breakdowns for campaigns, but I can tell the member opposite that last year's budget was $19.5 million. It was spent on fact-based information and awareness campaigns in the order of about $15.9 million. This year, as I mentioned, it is $11.9 million. There was about $2.5 million reallocated to provide various grants for communications activities, including the Council on Canadian Health Awareness, the 2010 business summit and the Picture B.C. campaign with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. There were additional costs that were available for forestry revitalization and Achieve B.C. community information tours.

There were a number of initiatives that were undertaken. The Spirit of 2010 campaign was one of them. Achieve B.C. was another. The forestry revitalization program was another. That information is not available for me today, but as I've said before to the member opposite, information is available in public accounts and will be confirmed, I imagine, by the end of next month. Also, if there is specific information that she requests us to gather together, we're glad to do that through freedom of information.

J. MacPhail: I can't believe it. We're referred to FOI, and we're referred to public accounts. Just reverse the roles for a moment to when this Premier was in opposition and, if a minister dared say that to him, how he would react.

By the way, it was under the Doug Walls report that the minister and the Premier referred us to freedom of information, because he was only offering the conclusions. We'll get to that — putting his words right back at him, right back….

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Children and Family Development says that we didn't make FOI requests. We made FOI requests every day to her ministry.

The Chair: Member, I would ask that the debate take place between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition.

J. MacPhail: Oh no, let's keep going. I want these words on the record. I want them.

We have the FOI requests right here, Madam Chair. Every 48 hours we were forced to file an FOI request to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Why? Because the Premier said, "File an FOI request. We'll release the conclusions, but you file an FOI request," so we started. Here they are. I can hardly wait to produce them for the Premier.

J. MacPhail: I just love it. The Minister of Children and Family Development doth protest too much. Here's what….

J. MacPhail: I love how the senior cabinet members come in and assist the Premier in his estimates. I just love it.

The Premier said, for the Doug Walls report: "File an FOI request." So we did. That was very helpful. He was only going to give the conclusions. Then we started filing FOI requests. We'll be happy to put these in front of the Premier, because we're going to be asking him specific questions about those FOI requests.

J. MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the Minister of Children and Family Development is being so outrageously defensive. I'm not quite sure. Is she nervous that we're going to ask questions about the Doug Walls report? I'm not quite sure what she's so nervous about, but surely the Premier should be a little bit embarrassed by his senior cabinet members who have already upset estimates, not once but thrice.

J. MacPhail: Yes, actually, that is true. The Minister of Children and Family Development's outrageous behaviour is upsetting me. That is absolutely true. Her outrageous misleading of the House about FOI requests is upsetting me.

Actually, the Minister of Children and Family Development was heckling across the floor that we never filed an FOI request. Shall I list them?

J. MacPhail: "You never filed an FOI request" is what she heckled across the floor. Maybe the minister would like to stand up and correct the record, then.

Well, isn't the Premier being helped by his Deputy Premier? I'm sure he's overwhelmed. Here's what we started filing, and we'll get into it — FOI requests as far back as January. We were filing them every 48 hours. That's because the Premier directed us to file FOI requests. Shameful. Now he's directing us to file FOI requests on media expenditures. Well, let's ask the Premier directly: what are the campaigns planned for the advertising, of the $11.9 million? I couldn't tell whether he was referring to campaigns from '03-04 or '04-05. What are the campaigns for '04-05?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I said, the budget that's been established for facts-based information awareness programs is $11.9 million. We would expect that we would be providing information to the people of British Columbia on health care, on education and the opportunities that are being created in education. We would expect that we would be doing some information campaigns with regard to cultural diversity and the economy in the regions of the province. We think those are critical campaigns to be undertaken. People have said quite clearly to us that they would like that information, and we intend to provide it to them.

J. MacPhail: Well, I thought that when a minister, including the Premier, gets approval for his budget — like $11.9 million for advertising — they actually have to justify it to Treasury Board. I'm sure it's not a global number. I'm sure Treasury Board doesn't do things that differently than it has over the last 50 years. So is the Premier suggesting…? He didn't mention any advertising around the 2010 Olympics in that list. Is there no campaign planned for expenditure on the 2010 Olympics out of that $11.9 million?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can assure the member opposite that Treasury Board does an extremely diligent job in reviewing the programs that are put before it. That's why this year we have the second-lowest budget for advertising in the last 15 years in the province. It's about half of what the NDP's budget was even a decade ago.

I think the issue for us is: will we be providing information opportunities for the public? The answer is yes. Where are the areas that we would likely focus that on over the next year? I can tell you at this point that I would anticipate there will be information provided on health care, as there has been in the past. There will be information provided on education, as there has been in the past. There will be information provided with regard to the diversity of the province and what we have to offer. We are working with the UBCM on the Picture B.C. campaign. That's obviously important as we start to promote the province in terms of tourism and other opportunities. I think that's critical.

I can tell you and tell the member opposite that the tourism industry has specifically asked for us to go out and tell people about what's taking place in British Columbia, about the tourism product that we have here. Is there a specific campaign at this point that's designed for the 2010 Winter Olympics? The answer is no. As the member opposite I'm sure knows, the 2010 Olympics are under the auspices of VANOC. They will be doing their own program with regard to that. We did do a Spirit of 2010 summit with businesses, particularly small businesses from across the province, to talk to them about how they could plug into the procurement opportunities made available by the 2010 Winter Olympic Games.

I should say to you, Madam Chair, that what we have been informed by literally every jurisdiction that's hosted the games is that the earlier you get started on looking at the opportunities and how you can build on them, the better off you are. Do I intend to stop talking about the Olympics? No. Is there an advertising campaign that is proposed right now for 2004-05 to talk about the Olympics? Not specifically. But certainly there may well be opportunities to talk about British Columbia, particularly outside of British Columbia.

We want to attract investors. We know, for example, that the campaign in California has generated a significant amount of interest. It has generated interest because British Columbia happens to be one of the

fastest-growing technology centres in North America. We have some of the most successful biotechnology companies in North America right here in British Columbia. People like to hear about what's going on in British Columbia, and certainly they're not going to know unless we give them the message.

The message is that we're open for investment. We've got a great place to live. We've got an exceptional health care system. We've got an education system for their kids. We are going to take that message out, because we are going to attract investment — unlike the last government, which drove literally thousands of people out of our province and took us from a have province to a have-not province.

It takes a lot of work to overcome the brand that the last government gave us. The last government gave us a brand of not welcoming investment. They gave us a brand of saying British Columbia is closed to business. We intend to open it up. We have been opening it up. We haven't created more jobs than any other jurisdiction in Canada because we've been hiding our light under a bushel. We're going to get out there and tell people that British Columbia is a great place to invest, a great place to live and a great place to raise your family, because that's the kind of province we live in.

J. MacPhail: The Premier just said the campaigns were very successful. Based on what measure? How much did it cost? What was the benefit?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I said to the member earlier, the budget for last year was $15.9 million, and the measure is that for the first time we have people returning to British Columbia. For the first time we are up in investment intention in British Columbia. We have small businesses growing at over 9 percent with an expectation that we'll grow at over 10 percent in the year to come. The measurements are that our small business community in British Columbia has more confidence in British Columbia than any other small business community in the country. Those are measures of success.

We're glad that we're taking information out to people outside of our province, and we're glad that people are noticing British Columbia, because it's benefiting British Columbians in terms of jobs and opportunities for the future.

J. MacPhail: I'm actually asking for some specifics, not rhetoric. The Premier said, for instance, that the California campaign worked. When we were in government, we advertised in California. I don't know what the Premier is getting so divisional about. Perhaps he has been upset by his Deputy Premier and her outrageous behaviour.

I'm just asking for specifics. There's no need to be defensive or so partisan. I'm just asking what the specifics are on the cost benefit. For instance, I note the B.C. Progress Board report. It's the minister's own group reporting on this, and he said how great everything is going. Well, he referred to the California campaign, and here's what the Progress Board reported about activity outside of British Columbia.

We're eighth for exports at the end of '03. We're sixth for business investments at the end of '03. On research and development we're fourth and fifth.

J. MacPhail: These are from the B.C. Progress Board report of last week. I don't know whether I can make it any more current than last week, and it is a government document, so that's what your own Progress Board reports.

I know that the government was going to rely on this as being a document of great success, so that's the document I'm using as well. I don't know whether we can get any more current than the end of '03 by the Progress Board report. I'm sure if there were more current stats, they would have published them from last week.

I think it's important to advertise too. I absolutely do. I think it's important that we know that our advertising is working. For instance, when the Premier announced an Olympics outreach and a B.C. outreach, I recall him saying in 2003 that the advertising campaign was going to be outside of British Columbia. Yet — I don't know — I saw it inside British Columbia. I know that the government always likes to mock me about my travels, but I'm pretty sure of where I am when I watch certain ad campaigns, and that was advertised inside British Columbia.

How does the Premier do an analysis from the public affairs bureau office about cost benefit for advertising?

Hon. G. Campbell: With regard to the Progress Board, I think it's always a good idea to read the entire report — not selectively read it. It's clear that we had strong indicators in December 2003.

Let me just go back for a moment. The Progress Board was called a progress board because we realized that one of the things we were going to have to do was move the province forward from the dismal hole that the NDP had created for the people who lived here throughout the 1990s. We realized it wasn't going to be something that happened overnight. There isn't some way you can flick a switch and all of a sudden things are turned on.

In the most recent report that we have, we know, for example, that for real disposable income we are third place in Canada. We know it's important for us to know that we are doing incredibly well in terms of the marginal tax rates. We know that for university completion we're number two. We know that environmental and health quality has remained number one. Those are important indicators for us.

I think the issue that's important for the member opposite to realize is that as the Progress Board moves forward, we will have a continuing build of informa-

There is no question that in 2003 there was significant progress made in British Columbia. For the first time in six years we had a net in-flow of population. I think it's kind of interesting to listen to this member talk about what she sees as happening or not happening. But let me tell you, Madam Chair, that we watched as under her government literally thousands of British Columbians left the province. They left the province in search of opportunity. They left the province because her government drove them out of the province.

I can tell you it takes a lot of work to tell people that British Columbia has changed and that we're ready to move forward again. The fact of the matter is that we have seen an increase in the number; 2,100 additional people came to British Columbia in 2003 than left. We've watched that for the first time in six years, we have substantial increase in investment in the forest industry. We have an increased number of people in small business.

I think what's important to note is that as we look to the future of British Columbia, communities across this province have a new sense of optimism about what they can accomplish, about what they can do. If you look at the resort sector, you can see it growing in virtually every part of the province. If you look at the forest sector, we saw an 18 percent increase in forestry investment last year. If you look at the oil and gas sector, we saw a 56 percent increase in the number of wells drilled last year.

We have people in the oil and gas sector who are saying to us…. Again, Premier Klein and I visited with the many members of the energy industry in Texas last year. I can tell you that they say British Columbia is getting it right. They're ready to invest in British Columbia. We saw the largest single gas lease sale in the history of Canada take place right here in British Columbia.

What's happening is that we are rushing to try and catch up with training people so that they can fill those jobs. There are jobs looking for people now in British Columbia. That is a sign of success. There are communities looking to their future in British Columbia again. That is a sign of success. We have investment intentions going up in British Columbia. That is a sign of success. We have Moody's saying that we are managing our economy and our government expenditures in a way that provides for long-term, sustainable programs that people can count on. That is a success.

We have anecdotal evidence. We have anecdotal evidence from people like the head of QLT, one of the few successful biotechnology companies in the world. That CEO has said to us explicitly: "Because of the changes that you made in British Columbia, I can attract talent back to British Columbia. I can build the future of my business here in British Columbia."

We have Electronic Arts, who have closed down the office they were forced to open under the previous government because of their tax regime and their anti-investment activities. We actually got that office closed in Washington State and reopened in British Columbia so that they're investing in jobs and opportunities for young British Columbians.

Madam Chair, I can tell you that British Columbia's message is going to be taken across the continent. It's going to be taken around the world, because British Columbians are proud of what we have. They're proud of what we have to offer, and they're proud of the future we have in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I guess the Premier doesn't have any cost-benefit analysis of the advertising, because that was the question.

Let's be clear about the employment stats, and these aren't anecdotal. Employment stats are not anecdotal. They're statistical. I know that CanWest Global didn't report on this. The CanWest Global regime didn't report on the stats from April, but here's what happened. The province lost a net 3,000 jobs, and yet the unemployment rate went down. And you go: "Oh my God. How could that possibly be?" It's because a number of people actually left the workforce — abandoned their attempts to find employment. That combined with a net loss in jobs had the unemployment rate going down.

That's the kind of good news this government likes. Yeah, we can get the unemployment rate down, although it's still substantially higher than when they took over government. We can get the unemployment rate down not only by losing jobs but by having more people leave the province because of lack of work — more than what the actual job loss was. Wow, that's a real success story. I guess the Premier doesn't have any cost-benefit analysis for his advertising, or else he would have answered my question.

Does the public affairs bureau have any advertising contracts with third-party agencies — ongoing or out for tender?

P. Sahota: Joining us in the House today are hard-working and enthusiastic students from Second Street School in Burnaby. They're here to learn more about government and politics and the Legislature. They are joined by their teacher, Ms. Kirkpatrick, and parents and other teachers Ms. Fletcher, Ms. Muselius, Ms. Sakibara, Mrs. Murao, Mrs. Singh, Mr. Mervin, Mr. Mackie, Mrs. Huisman and Mr. Gerew. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: Can the member opposite make it clear to me what she means by that?

J. MacPhail: It's been reported that the public affairs bureau is seeking a full-time advertising agency for contract. The agency will "assist in strategic advertising planning and in creative and production services for multimedia campaigns focused on the province's economic policies and programs, the overall B.C. economy and the province's regional and cultural diversity." The public affairs bureau is also seeking a full-time agency of record for "cross-government campaigns that focus on policy and programs related to financial management, government operations and accountability." The contract for this third-party agency would involve video and film projects.

Hon. G. Campbell: As the member opposite knows, the requests for proposal were placed on B.C. Bid website in accordance with the standard process for ensuring that the private sector has access to complete public sector opportunities. The template and the process do not differ from those used by the previous administration.

J. MacPhail: Oh, when it suits this government, they're doing things no differently than the previous administration. It's just wonderful how the government can swish and swoosh. Fortunately, the public sees through it. So everything's just the same as the previous government, but oh, when they want to distinguish themselves, they just give anecdotal evidence.

Boy, I bet you the public would like to say: "I wish this government could have the same economic growth that was achieved under the previous government — 2.9 percent in the last year, an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent."

J. MacPhail: Oh yeah, the Deputy Premier laughs because she's embarrassed by the fact that at the end of their term, they will have gotten back to the economic well-being they were left with. That's what they'll have achieved. Wow, what a record.

It's no different than under the previous government — fair enough. But who is it? What's the outcome of the advertising? What's the plan? How much?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned, on the B.C. Bid website there is a request for proposal that is being reviewed at this point by the staff. The budget that's been set for advertising in this budget is $11.9 million. As I mentioned earlier, those dollars will be going in general to the programs which I mentioned. Those programs, I'm sure, will evolve and will be developed specifically as we go through the next 12 months. I think it's also important to note that we will do all of those programs within the budget that's been established.

You know, I have to respond at least briefly to the member opposite's comments. I was born in British Columbia. I remember what it was like to live in a province where there was opportunity for young people, where people didn't feel they had to leave — in fact, where British Columbia was a magnet for investment, where British Columbia was a magnet for job growth.

I can tell the member opposite…. She may want to close her eyes to this. She said at the beginning that of course they've learned their lesson. Count on them. They've learned their lesson. All they're opposed to so far is offshore oil and gas. All they're opposed to so far is a billion-dollar investment in the northern economies of British Columbia. All they're opposed to so far is the potential to get coastal communities back up on their feet with stable, long-term activities. All they're opposed to so far, exactly as they were before, was the mining industry in this province where because of their activities, one out of two people lost their job in mining in British Columbia.

Madam Chair, 52,000 people left this province between 1998 and 2001. After a decade of the previous government's activity, we went from being a have province that people took pride in, that they knew they could invest in, to a have-not province. I'm the first to admit that boy, were they successful in making us a have-not; were they successful in driving out investment; were they successful in driving out jobs.

For the first time in the history of the province we have over two million people at work, and we're going to have even more people at work as we move forward with offshore oil and gas investment. We're going to have even more people at work as we've discovered how we can create an ongoing, year-round oil and gas industry in this province. We're going to have even more people at work as we re-establish mining as an opportunity and an industry of opportunity for people all over British Columbia. We're going to have even more people at work as we undo the damage that the previous government did with overburdening regulation and taxation policy that drove literally dozens of mills out of existence in the forest industry in this province. So we are going to have more people at work. We're proud of having more people at work.

We are going to encourage investment. We're proud of encouraging investment. We've created over 125,000 new jobs in British Columbia. That's 125,000 people who have work now, who didn't have it before December 31, 2001. That's a record that any other province would like to have. We have it in British Columbia because we've worked hard. Yes, we've made some difficult decisions, but those decisions have always been focused on what's best for the families of British Columbia and what's best for the communities of British Columbia. Have they been tough? Yes, they have. But I think people in British Columbia are recognizing that we're able to move ahead. As we move forward….

Yes, we do have an advertising budget. Yes, it is one-half of the NDP's advertising budget about a decade ago. Yes, we will be providing the public with direct information on what's taking place in health care, what the opportunities in education and lifelong learn-

ing are as we expand our advanced education activities at the fastest rate for four decades in this province. Of course we're going to tell people that.

Of course we're going to tell investors about British Columbia, because we want their investment. We want their jobs. We want their support for our families and our communities — whether those communities are in Kamloops, Cranbrook, Fort St. John, Terrace, Prince Rupert, Campbell River or Victoria. We want that support here in British Columbia. I think we are not only being prudent in where we are investing, but we are being appropriate and proper in how we are encouraging agencies of record to become involved in the province.

I think the people of British Columbia will respond to that, as they have already, by starting to return. We know already that those 52,000 people that left the province between 1998 and 2001 left in search of opportunity. We know we've started to bring those people back, those numbers back, and what we have to do is keep building on that, because that's how we're going to build the future of the province.

J. MacPhail: An interesting speech in response to my question about the agency of record. The Premier started off by saying he was born in this province. He has mentioned that, I think, three times so far in the estimates. I find that a curious statement.

J. MacPhail: I just find it a curious statement. I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair.

Perhaps the Premier could say, then…. He was talking about when he was a young person and jobs were available. What direction is the youth unemployment rate going now? Let's be fair. Let's look at it one month, six months, 12 months ago.

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have the exact numbers on youth unemployment. I'm sure I can get them for the member opposite.

Let me say this. I was born in British Columbia. I was brought up in British Columbia. I went to the public education system here in British Columbia. I do remember what it was like as I went to university, as I looked for opportunities, and there were ample opportunities in British Columbia. I do remember, as I went through the seventies and the eighties, how people felt about our province. I think it's important to remember that British Columbians throughout the decade of the nineties lost that sense of confidence that they had.

Are the youth in British Columbia having difficulty finding work today? Yes, they are. But let me say this. As we rebuild the industries that the previous government watched diminish and dwindle in this province…. As we rebuild those industries, young people in this province are going to have more opportunities to find work. Young people in this province are going to have more opportunities to build their future. That's why young people are coming back to B.C. now. That's why young people are staying in British Columbia now.

We have a long way to go before we're back to where we want to be in the province, and I'm the first to admit that. I believe the way to encourage that to take place is through private sector investment, and it's through creating a climate where hard work pays off, and that's what we've done in the province.

J. MacPhail: I do have the stats on youth unemployment. When this government took over, the youth unemployment rate was 13.6 percent, and now it's at 14.9 percent. You'll see that a substantial number of youth have left the workforce. The participation rate is down as well.

In terms of employment, private sector employment is down 1.5 percent, and self-employment is down 4.4 percent. That's not anecdotal. That's the last statistical report.

In terms of the RFP for the full-time advertising agency, was there a figure attached to the value of the contract in the RFP?

Hon. G. Campbell: No, there was not a figure attached to the request for proposals.

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't know the date for the completion. I know it is ongoing. I am sure it will be within the next number of weeks.

J. MacPhail: Have there been any other changes in the structure and organization of the public affairs bureau?

J. MacPhail: Well, that's good to know. Writing and graphic design has been changed to writing and editorial services. I note that graphic design now has its own branch under the support services and operation division. Is graphic design now charged against the public affairs bureau or not?

Hon. G. Campbell: The internal graphic design that takes place in the public affairs bureau is charged to the public affairs bureau.

J. MacPhail: Then perhaps the minister could explain what it means. Graphic design has its own branch under the support services and operations division. Is that a support services and operations division of the public affairs bureau or of the Premier's office?

J. MacPhail: Is there a research and policy branch under the auspices of any part of the Premier's budget?

J. MacPhail: Is there a research or policy branch anywhere under the auspices of the Premier's office — in any aspect of the area that he's responsible for?

Hon. G. Campbell: Jessica McDonald has been appointed deputy minister for strategic policy for the economy and the environment. The ministries of government are working together and are trying to coordinate and integrate the various services and activities that are taking place. In terms of — I think you called it research and…. What was the other thing?

Hon. G. Campbell: There are no additional activities taking place beyond Ms. McDonald.

J. MacPhail: That brings me to the staff of the office of the Premier. According to the government directory, two assistant deputy minister positions have been cut — the positions of ADM Liz Gilliland and Beth James, the ADM of corporate planning. Both of those have been cut.

Last year the Premier stated in estimates debate that Beth James was working on the heartlands strategy. Who's now working on the heartlands strategy?

Hon. G. Campbell: The heartlands strategy remains a strategy that goes across government, as I mentioned last year to the member opposite. There is a heartlands strategy with regard to transportation investment, which is carried out by the Transportation minister. I know that she's had an opportunity to meet and ask him questions with regard to that. The heartlands strategy is carried out under the Ministry of Advanced Education, where we are bringing advanced education and accessibility to students out to the heartlands of British Columbia. The heartlands strategy is carried out by the Minister of Health Services, who is providing for additional specialist opportunities, regionalized hospital services and telemedicine availability. The heartlands strategy, in terms of the economy, is focused in the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's quite different than what the Premier was saying last year about the absolute necessity of having Beth James in there as an ADM working on the heartlands strategy. How long was Ms. James's contract, and did she get severance when her position was cut, when she was let go?

Hon. G. Campbell: Ms. James applied for, through the regular processes, and attained a position of assistant deputy minister in Human Resources.

J. MacPhail: How much was she paid out of the Premier's office for her heartlands strategy work?

Hon. G. Campbell: Ms. James was a regular employee with a regular salary, which was paid to her for all of the work she did, including the work she did on the heartlands initiative — as were other members of government who were part of the heartlands initiative.

J. MacPhail: Is there a product that Ms. James produced? This was an area we discussed in estimates last year, about the absolute necessity of having Ms. James devoted to the heartlands strategy. Is there some document produced, and would we need to FOI it?

Hon. G. Campbell: There are a number of documents that relate specifically to the heartlands strategy. First, the transportation strategy is clearly in place. It's available on the Web. There was an economic development strategy that was put in place and, in fact, was made public on May 3, I think, at the 2010 RBC summit. It outlined a number of economic opportunities in various regions of the province, in the heartlands of the province.

There are, of course, ongoing plans that are in place with regard to health care. There are six health authorities that provide ongoing plans for their operations. There are the plans in place for the Ministry of Advanced Education which have been announced, including the UBC Okanagan campus — the new Okanagan college; the new University College of the Cariboo to be named in the future; the expansion, for example, of BCIT; the Northern Lights College, etc. So that's all part of an overall heartland strategy.

We can have the same discussion we had last year, but the fact of the matter is that as we respond with providing services to communities across the province in the heartlands, that is indeed the heartlands strategy that we're building. We have a Minister of State for Resort Development. That's part of a heartlands strategy. From the Kicking Horse resort in Golden to the Mount Washington resort on Vancouver Island to coastal resorts that we're looking at — all of those are possible.

I would be glad to hand across to the member the B.C. heartlands economic strategy. I'm sure I can get her a number of copies of this if she would like it.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'd be thrilled. I bet you there are boxes full of this strategy available, Madam Chair, so I'm thrilled to have it. Thank you very much.

Hon. G. Campbell: Ms. Gilliland worked as an assistant deputy minister in the Premier's office. She

worked on the conservation investment initiative strategy that the province has developed. She worked on the regional service delivery strategy. She left the Premier's office and went to work in the Ministry of Management Services, and following her work in the Ministry of Management Services she is now at work in the Leadership Centre under the Public Service Agency.

J. MacPhail: Who's doing the work that she previously was responsible for in the Premier's office?

Hon. G. Campbell: Ms. Gilliland, as I mentioned and answered, was doing project work. She moved on. Some of the work that she was doing is being carried on by Ms. McDonald — for example, coordination of land use issues. There is still some work to be done on the conservation initiative that's been undertaken in the midcoast. She is doing work on working to complete the land use plans. As I'm sure the member opposite knows, the land use plans that we are working to complete by June of this year involve a number of ministries and a number of members of the public as we work through that, including first nations. She's working to coordinate all land use issues across government, as I think members opposite understand that the land use issues across government require an integrative response. She is responsible for those and land use management as well.

J. MacPhail: The Premier has mentioned several times a Jessica McDonald. On October 31, effective for November 3, Jessica McDonald was added as the deputy minister of strategic policy, economy and environment. So she's carrying on the work of what an ADM did. What are her other duties?

Hon. G. Campbell: I want to go back. I don't want there to be any misunderstanding. Ms. Gilliland, as an assistant deputy minister, really had a project orientation, and the projects were generally completed by Ms. Gilliland. She then moved on.

Ms. McDonald came in as a deputy minister for strategic policy, economy and the environment. She actually chairs the working group on land use plans. She chairs the working group that brings together deputies for natural resource ministries across government. She chairs the group that's working with regard to compensation issues in the province. All of those things are part of her task as the deputy minister of strategic policy, economy and the environment.

J. MacPhail: That's interesting. There's a working group on land use plans. I specifically asked the ministers responsible for land use planning in their estimates what coordinating bodies there were — under our government there was ELUC, an environment and land use cabinet committee — and nobody knew about any coordinating body.

Hon. G. Campbell: There is a deputy ministers' committee on the environment and resource development. The deputy minister for strategic policy, economy and the environment chairs that.

J. MacPhail: You better tell the ministers that exists, because they didn't know anything about it. Let me just leave that. I specifically asked about coordinating land use issues, because I wanted to make sure that someone was looking at the cross-ministry issues, and I had no information about this working group.

What are the qualifications of Jessica McDonald that provide expertise in this area?

Hon. G. Campbell: Ms. McDonald was actively involved, actually, with the previous government on a number of areas of interest that provided her with not just public policy and public administration experience, but she also specialized in Crown land and natural resource management. She comes to us from the private sector. She worked with international non-government agencies, with Crown corporations, with first nations and with a number of public groups. She worked in innovative land use management plans, evaluation of major land use agreements, etc. As I mentioned, she had done significant work under the previous government. We felt that she brought a unique perspective and that she brought the expertise which was necessary for us to complete some of the tasks we've laid out for ourselves.

J. MacPhail: You mean she helped the government during that decade of decline — oh my God — in areas like land use, when the province was just going to hell in a handbasket? Oh my God. And now she's in the Premier's office. I hope the world is going to be saved from that interloper — not.

What private sector area did Jessica McDonald…? I was actively involved in the previous government, and these are just general questions. I'm not taking a position on her. What private sector firm did she come from? I'm just trying to recall.

Hon. G. Campbell: Ms. McDonald's work experience goes back. She worked as an assistant manager for headquarters initiatives and budget management in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in the province from 1996 to 1997. She worked as a manager of land programs in the Crown lands branch in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in the government of British Columbia from '97 to '98. In 1998 she left the previous government, I guess because she felt…. I won't even say that. She left the previous government. See how I did that? Just pulled right back there.

She left the previous government, and she formed her own company called Tupelo Consulting Inc. With that company, she provided advice on public policy

development and interpretations analysis to first nations groups, various non-profit organizations and non-government organizations in the private sector. As well, she was at work providing land use management advice, business planning and program evaluation, negotiation expertise, interagency liaisons and general project management.

She took her company in 1998…. This is phenomenal, Madam Chair, when you think about it. In the economic environment that was established by the previous government, she actually managed to get her company to grow to 13 employees. However, she decided there were some real challenges ahead of us in British Columbia that excited her — opportunities to provide some time for herself in public service — and we're glad to have her with us.

J. MacPhail: It's funny what snippets of good news about that awful decade of decline pop through. I know it just grates the government — just grates the government. They kind of treat it like boils that need to be lanced, I know, but nevertheless it's good news.

In the executive branch of the office of the Premier, a senior coordinator of issues management position has been added from last year. It's currently held, I think, by a Jay Schlosar. What's the position?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, there is a senior coordinator of issues management in the Premier's office. That individual provides political advice and recommendations to the director of issues management, the ministers and the private members. He is responsible for keeping on top of what is taking place. He provides briefings on current and emerging political issues, and he provides support to ministerial assistants across government.

Maybe while the Premier is looking for this information, he could also tell me who Mr. Schlosar reports to. Who is the director of issues management, and to which deputy minister do they both report?

Hon. G. Campbell: I have not got the salary yet, but I am sure we will get it. He reports to the director of issues management in my office. Both of those employees report through to Martyn Brown, my chief of staff.

J. MacPhail: Who is the director of issues management? What's the name of the person?

J. MacPhail: Were Tom and Martyn so busy that they needed another person? I'm kind of wondering about the 360 degrees of management. How is that going around on the political issues management side? On that stream of issues management, how much money of the Premier's budget is devoted to that issue — issues management?

Hon. G. Campbell: There are two staff people involved in that. I can't say right now. I will get that information for the member opposite — exactly what the total salaries are for both people. There have always been two people carrying out those responsibilities within the Premier's office, at least since I've been in the Premier's office. I'm sure that information is available.

J. MacPhail: Indeed, it's not a new position. Is that right? I said the position had been added from last year because I couldn't find it last year. So it's a replacement position?

Just so the member has this information, the total for both of those employees is $144,437.

I'm sorry. I looked at the staffing diagram, flow chart, and I didn't see this position the year before, but if the Premier is saying it's always been there, that's fine. Then they report to Martyn Brown. How many staff in the Premier's office report directly to Martyn Brown, not having to report to any other deputy minister?

J. MacPhail: There was a bit of mischief in a report from a columnist in the British Columbia press gallery alleging that the Premier has created a political working group. One minister actually confirmed that he was a member of the political working group. It would be the Minister of Human Resources. It was really mischief, Madam Chair, by the press gallery. I was quite taken aback by that mischief being alleged. It was that this was for pre-election strategizing and to assist with fundraising. Can the Premier deny that that's true?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the member opposite raised at the beginning of her comments, in 364 days there's going to be an election. We have 74 MLAs who are all hopefully going to seek re-election, who are actively involved in political activities. I would expect them to be involved in political activities. They're not doing that as they serve in their constituency offices, but they are trying to get re-elected. There is no question about it.

J. MacPhail: It was confirmed that the Minister of Human Resources was a member of a group charged with pre-election strategizing and to assist with fundraising. Could the Premier shine light on the group that the Minister of Human Resources is part of? Is it a cabinet caucus group? Is it a caucus group? Is the Premier a member of that group? What are their duties? When do they meet?

Hon. G. Campbell: I hope it's not a surprise to the member opposite that as members of a political party, we have people that are engaged in political activities. It is not part of their government activities, it's not part of their government duties, and it's not carried out during their government time. But I can tell you that we are going to continue to work to earn the support of British Columbians as we move towards May 17, 2005, and I would hope all of my colleagues will be focused on the opportunities that are created in communities across the province. That is certainly not something that's in the government's purview. It's something that we do outside of our public duties as elected officials seeking re-election.

J. MacPhail: Now that the Premier has said that this group does exist, are meetings called by the Liberal Party, or are they called by…? Who calls the meetings? And who attends, outside of elected Liberal caucus members, if it's not government work?

Hon. G. Campbell: The political activities of those of us who are involved in the party take place often on weekends or in the evenings. As much as I'm sure the member opposite would like to understand what our election strategy is, let me just tell her that we'll show her after the election, and we're fully expecting to have another 74 MLAs in the House.

J. MacPhail: Oh, I hope the Premier doesn't believe in the tooth fairy too. He will be so disappointed.

Just to conclude on this particular matter before turning questions over to my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, is the Premier saying that there is no political working group that consists solely of Liberal caucus members who meet to discuss matters of fundraising and pre-election strategy?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't at this point believe in the tooth fairy, but I do believe in hard work, and I do believe that the member opposite is going to have to wait for the election to find out what our election strategy is.

J. Kwan: I would now like to turn to the issue around Doug Walls and the situation that the government was faced with — and more importantly, the community was faced with — as a result of the scandal around Doug Walls.

Let me just start by reminding the House what the scandal is about. Doug Walls is a friend, a political supporter and a relative of the Premier. He got a six-figure salary from the B.C. Liberals with no competition, no notice, no announcement and no scrutiny. Let us not forget that this is the Premier that campaigned on a commitment to merit employment, to openness and, above all, to no friends and insiders. Yet British Columbians now know that as a result of this scandal and the Walls ties to the B.C. Liberals, over $2 million that was shovelled to Mr. Walls and his companies will forever be lost for programs for children and their families.

Besides his ties to the Premier, Mr. Walls also has close ties to other members of the B.C. Liberal cabinet, including the former Minister of Children and Family Development and the Minister of Advanced Education — all admitted on record by Mr. Walls.

J. Kwan: As I'm putting this matter on the record, Madam Chair, I have the member for Vancouver-Burrard nattering next to me, along with the Deputy Premier having a side conversation. I know they don't want to hear about the Doug Walls issue. They think that the auditor's report has dealt with all of it, and they then want to say: "Hey, let's just sweep it all under the rug."

Well, unfortunately for the Deputy Premier and the member for Vancouver-Burrard, there are a lot of issues and questions that are unanswered. Let me just remind these two members that there is over $2 million that has actually gone missing.

J. Kwan: Madam Chair, in fact, I will wait for silence. Maybe the members will actually listen to the errors and mismanagement of this government. Maybe they'll actually pay some attention…

J. Kwan: Until the B.C. Liberals took power, Mr. Walls was just a small fish in government helping non-profits get Internet access. Soon after the election, though, all that was over. Mr. Walls was invited into the Premier's office and given enormous influence over the Minister of Children and Family Development — finalizing plans for Community Living, taking control of a $600 million budget long before the core review was complete.

I asked some of these questions to the Minister of Children and Family Development during estimates, and she refused to answer them. She said all would be dealt with in the release of the audit information. We now have the audit information, and there are many questions that remain unanswered, so I'm now going to canvass these questions with the head of the Executive Council, the Premier.

What qualifications did Doug Walls have that made the government choose him for this major government initiative without any process?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm always surprised when the opposition decides to simply ignore the facts and carry on with their own version of what has taken place. Let's go back to the beginning. The member previously, or her colleague previously, said that we did not want the information with regard to the investigation — CareNet Technology Society and the provincial government with Doug Walls — to be made public and that we had to be dragged to do that.

Probably within the second time I was talking with members of the media and certainly by March 1 of this year, I said specifically that I wanted the conclusions of the independent audit to be made public. I said we would do that. This is a quote from a radio program of March 1 between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m.: "I have said that as soon as the audit is done, we would review the audit in terms of freedom of information and protection of privacy and that we would make that public as quickly as possible, because we all want this information to be public as quickly as possible."

That's exactly what we did. Although the members opposite may think it's not a good idea to do freedom-of-information-and-protection-of-privacy reviews of this, this was all done independently. There was no political interference in the development of the audit, except to say we wanted all of the information to be gathered and wanted there to be a free and unfettered examination of what exactly took place.

If the member would read all the way up to page 1 of the report…. If she would read that report all the way to page 1, she would see what the terms of reference were for this report. I think it is important to note that PricewaterhouseCoopers was the independent body that carried out this investigation. The investigation was carried out by Ron Parks, someone who I'm sure the member opposite can recall from his work on behalf of the public investigating the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and the detail and the rigour with which he applied his professional expertise to that.

I would encourage the member opposite to read even the executive summary of this report. When she reads the executive summary, she would know — if she just reads the fact base, she would know — that the provincial government did not appoint Mr. Walls to any position.

J. Kwan: Let me put the record straight. Here's a stack of reports of what the Premier said and what the Deputy Premier said about the audit. I would just put the summary on the record. It was as a result of public pressure that the government changed its position and subsequently released the audit, but let me put it on record. As far back as January 31, 2004, it was reported in the Vancouver Sun that deals cost the former Minister of Children and Family Development his job — to be audited. When you look back to that article, it says clearly that only the conclusions of the audit would be released.

That wasn't the only time where it was cited. On February 3, 2004, Vaughn Palmer wrote an article about this, entitled "Silence Deepens Intrigue over Walls-Linked Audit." Again, it talks about that only the conclusion would be released. Then, on February 6, 2004, the Minister of Finance weighs in to defend the secrecy over the audit of the Walls affairs.

The Chair: Members. Members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: If the members actually want to have a conversation outside — they do it regularly — they can step outside the halls to do that. If they actually have a question for the Premier, they would be welcome to get up and ask their question, Madam Chair.

J. Kwan: Let me put on the record: the Times Colonist, February 26, 2004, the Leader of the Opposition puts on record….

J. Kwan: February 26, 2004, the House Leader of the Opposition wants the audit in the Walls case made public on the issue around the government's announcement on the Premier's orders that only the conclusion would be released. March 23, 2004, once again, the NDP wants to know if the police are dealing with the investigation and asks once again for the entire audit to be released. March 27, 2004, Les Leyne wrote an article about this issue.

In the Prince George Citizen, February 6: "Walls Probe Criticized." What was the criticism? The criticism was that only the conclusion would be released. February 6, 2004, Vaughn Palmer, yet another article in the Prince George Citizen: "Walls Probe Mired in Secrecy." February 7, 2004, in his own words: "Premier Tackles

Tough Questions Haunting Liberals." What was the issue? Only the conclusion of the Walls report would be released. Then on February 7, another Vaughn Palmer report: "Full Disclosure Needed From Walls Audit." What's that full disclosure? The entire report should be released and not just the conclusion. Then on April 21, 2004: "Release Walls Financial Audit, MLA Demands."

This is a matter of public record in terms of what this Premier said and what the Deputy Premier said around the audit. It was as a result of public pressure — along with opposition pressure; make no mistake about that — that the government finally released the report. It is on record what this government has said and what this Premier has said about the audit.

Now the Premier says: "Oh, wow. You know, you should read the report." Don't worry, Madam Chair, I read the report cover to cover. I wonder whether or not the Premier has read it cover to cover. I'll take the Premier's word for it that he actually read the full report.

Let me just canvass this with the Premier. He says that the government never hired Doug Walls. Well, the government actually contracted Doug Walls. That's what happened. Then right under the government's nose, millions of dollars started to disappear, to the tune of $2 million. Over $2 million have disappeared under this government — this government's management style — and the chaos that was taking place in the Ministry of Children and Family Development….

Again, a question to the Premier. The qualification of Doug Walls…. We know, and according to the report — e-mails have also been reported in the audit — that meetings had taken place with Doug Walls, Mr. Dobell and other members from the Premier's office around individualized plans for people with developmental disabilities and in the community living community. We know that's taken place.

Soon after, we find that Mr. Walls actually lands this position to head up the interim authority. That's also in the Doug Walls report. We know he had control of some $600 million, in terms of budgeting, before the core review was completed. So, Madam Chair, in the spirit of openness and accountability from this government, will the Premier table today the draft report that the government received in the last week of April? We know that the government received a draft report on the Walls audit. Will this Premier commit today in this House to table that report?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm going to start at the beginning. The member says that she read this, so I'm sure that she read it and that she paid attention to someone with the qualities of Mr. Parks. He said: "We found no evidence of undue outside influence in Mr. Walls's appointments as a contractor to CLTSC and the interim authority…. We did find a complete lack of due diligence with respect to Mr. Walls." Then there is a severing. "Mr. Walls attempted to influence the appointment of Chris Haynes as deputy minister, and he was…admonished by the Premier" for doing that.

The report goes through on a consistent basis. The member can decide to say that she's read the report and then deliberately omit the parts of the report that don't fit her preconceived notions. Not a dollar disappeared, Madam Chair. In fact, the reason that we put the investigation in place was to be sure that we could discover what exactly did take place.

The member opposite says there was $600 million under the care of the society. That is not the case. Again, if the member would read the report and maybe take a little more time to read the report, she would know that there was $3 million that was available for planning. She would know that the society, which was independent…. Part of the initiative to try and regionalize services that people required in the community living sector was that independence.

What actually took place was that there was a complaint. The complaint was followed up. As that complaint was followed up, it was very clear to me from the outset, as is typically the case, that the conclusions of that review would be made public. I then said — frankly, I think it was earlier than March 1, but I have a recording of it on March 1 — that all of the report would be made public, subject to freedom-of-information and privacy reviews.

The report that was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers was submitted to staff. No minister, no one in the Premier's office saw it, and it was submitted to staff for fact-changing and fact-checking, as is appropriate and as is professional.

At no time did anyone in the Premier's office or any minister of government ask for any changes in that report. The major concern we had with regard to this report was that it be made public after a thorough and complete investigation, including the request that e-mails be made available so that people could read them.

I understand that the partial reading of those e-mails and not reading the whole report may, in fact, paint a picture that the opposition member would like to see. In a full reading of the report it is clear that there was not undue influence; that there was not political influence; that the decisions with regard to Mr. Walls were made by the board itself, not by any politicians; and that there were no special relations that benefited anybody in this particular case at the political level. I think those facts speak for themselves.

Let me just say that I wish — and I can tell you that British Columbians wish — that when the previous government got their warning with regard to the fast ferries, anyone in that government had stood up and said: "Let's get to the bottom of this before we proceed." It would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars for the taxpayers of this province. Instead of saying as we did: "Let's do the internal audit; let's have the independent audit; let's move forward and get the information and provide it to the public…." Unfortunately, the last government didn't do that. We have done that. The report speaks for itself, Madam Chair.

J. Kwan: Let me address a couple of issues the Premier highlighted. He said, and he changed his story

just now by saying: "Oh, I first asked for only the conclusion to be released. Then later on, sometime in March, I said that we'll try to endeavour to make as much of the report available to the public." Why? Because there was intense pressure from the opposition and from the public demanding that this government release the entire report.

Let me just put the Premier's own words on record from the Prince George Citizen, when he was asked about this question. Question: "Why will the independent audit in its entirety not be made public?" Answer from the Premier: "I have said clearly that we have to have the conclusions made public. I think the public wants to know what took place, when it took place, how it took place and who was responsible for it taking place." The Premier's own words, Madam Chair, and I'm not paraphrasing here.

The Premier and the Deputy Premier and this government stuck to that line. The Minister of Finance stuck to that line and defended this entire secrecy approach to the Doug Walls scandal. Then it was only because of relentless pressure from the opposition and from members of the public that the government relented and made the report available when it was released.

The Premier didn't answer my question, Madam Chair. I don't want to lose sight of that, but before I get there, I do want to highlight this. Yes, the report is here for us to see. Let us look and see what the report says.

The Premier claims that I should go beyond page 1. Let me urge the Premier to go to page 9 of the document, where it summarizes the costs to British Columbians as a result of this scandal — costs to British Columbia, direct costs to the province. It is now called — yes, through the audit — the elimination of account receivable from CareNet, $537,180. To put that into plain language, elimination of accounts receivable means that a debt owed to the province by Doug Walls, through his company called CareNet, was never paid — elimination of an account receivable, a loss of $537,000.

Another component: assumption of CareNet connection charges. That would be billings, in plain language — billings to the ministry, $590,903. Total direct cost to the province: $1.128 million. That's the direct cost to the province.

Indirect costs via CareNet member agency funding. That would be non-profit agencies that lost moneys but non-profit agencies that received funding from the province. That's why it is called indirect cost to the province. Nonetheless, it's still taxpayers' money — $1.214 million — for a total cost to the province of $2,342,891. That's the cost of the Doug Walls scandal to taxpayers.

Then of course, if you go further down the table, it does list a number of other people to whom money is owed by Doug Walls or his company, to companies that actually did work but never did receive payment for — something I'm sure the member for Vancouver-Burrard would know well: owing money, not paying for it and then finding a way to not pay for it. Here's the total cost to the CareNet project in its entirety: $3,776,848. That's how much it is costing the province, and it is released in this document from the auditor.

I will go further into the content and the substance of the report as we go on in this estimates debate, but I do want to ensure that the Premier has an opportunity here to be open and accountable, as he likes to claim his government operates.

Just so we know that there was no political interference in the release of the report, perhaps the Premier would commit that he would table today the draft report that the government received in the last week of April for the public to read and to peruse so that we can judge for ourselves that there was, in fact, no political interference.

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me say that any changes in the report would have simply been facts. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for us to put facts out. Second, let me point out that with regard to CareNet, it is not owned by Doug Walls. It was not owned by Doug Walls. It was, in fact, a society. Was there extra money provided by government to those societies to contribute to CareNet? The answer is no.

There were significant discussions — as the member opposite, I'm sure, knows — around the creation of CareNet in the late 1990s. The society was incorporated on September 15 of the year 2000. The first financial activity was in May of 2001.

I think it's pretty clear. If the members opposite want to look at this report that was prepared by Ron Parks, it is complete. The conclusions are complete, and although they may not like the conclusions, the conclusions do speak for themselves.

J. Kwan: I'll tell you what I don't like. What I don't like is that under this government's mismanagement, $2.3 million of taxpayers' moneys have gone — moneys that could have gone into and should have gone into the protection of children; maybe engaging in addressing some of the crisis situations that the community of Zeballos is faced with — and other communities; maybe supporting people with developmental disabilities, for example; maybe for children who are faced with autism or families who are faced with autism, for example. Maybe that would actually make a bit of a difference.

I'll tell you, Madam Chair, what I'm not happy about. What I'm not happy about is that government created a chaotic situation in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. They embarked on a reorganization exercise in the midst of heavy cuts, to everybody's warning that told this government: "Don't do this while you are going through these major cuts, because the children and the families will be impacted."

In the midst of all of this the government has mismanaged its files with Doug Walls, and $2.3 million has gone — no longer available for the protection of children and families because of this scandal. That's what I'm not happy about.

The Premier says the draft report…. There is basically no substantive change from it. If the Premier wants to prove his point…. I will accept the Premier's word if he agrees to provide the draft document and table it in this House so that I can make that determination, so that I could take that draft report which landed in the government, which they have received, and compare it to the report that was released — maybe there are no substantive changes or differences, but then again, maybe not — so that British Columbians could have the assurance that there was no political interference in this process.

Well, then the Premier should commit to releasing that draft report. Give the Premier, one more time, an opportunity here to live up to the words that he spouted during the election campaign to be open and accountable and transparent. Here's an opportunity to do exactly that.

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, Madam Chair, it is interesting, for all of us who serve in elected office, what we decide to pursue. I think it is totally inappropriate for the member opposite to suggest that professional public servants who have served in the interests of British Columbians for a number of years would have interfered with a report like this. It is equally inappropriate for them to call into question the integrity of Mr. Parks.

Now, the member opposite knows — and the member opposite knows because her party was in government as Mr. Parks went through the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society audit…. I'm sure the member opposite….

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the member opposite doesn't mean to cast aspersions…

Hon. G. Campbell: …on professional public servants, but as I said — and I want to reiterate this — the only changes that would have been made to this report are factual changes. Those factual changes are changes that have to be concurred with between people who are totally independent of the political arm. They are factual changes that…. Perhaps Mr. Parks agreed with those facts. I would suggest that if they are calling into question Mr. Parks's integrity, they may want to ask Mr. Parks if he feels that his report was changed. I think that is the route to go.

I can tell you that this is an open display of information for people. I recognize that the members opposite don't like the conclusions made by Mr. Parks, but it is clear that there was no undue influence exerted by any member of the government. In fact, it was the Community Living transition team that hired Mr. Parks. I do think it's important to note this, because I am interested in the member opposite's position.

For over a decade people that were involved in this have called for changes in the way services are delivered to people who may have some disabilities of this sort. For over a decade families have said: "We want to have control over our children's lives." For over a decade those who have been directly involved have said they want to be involved in it. The government has done something that I think is important. We've listened to those families. We've worked with those families. We've worked with the community living transition society. What we are doing is something that will improve the quality of life for all of those people who are involved.

This report actually speaks for itself. I'm glad to have the members read it. I'm glad to have the members misinterpret it, if that's what they decide they're going to do. I can tell you this. At the end of the day, I am confident about the direction we're taking with regard to regionalization. More importantly than that, the families are confident in the direction we're taking on regionalization, because it's important to their children, to their adult children. It's important for us to improve their quality of life.

I am interested to hear what the member opposite's position is with regard to creating a community authority. Certainly, they didn't do anything over the ten years that they were in government, when families were beseeching the government to try and pay attention to what was taking place for their children as deinstitutionalization took place without the necessary response to the individual needs of young people and people with those disabilities.

J. Kwan: If any of the members, including the Premier, care to pay attention to what goes on in this Legislature, the Premier would note that when the former Minister of Children and Family Development tabled the interim authority about regionalization in this House by way of legislation, we entered into debate on that issue. I put on record exactly what the opposition's comments were regarding regionalization.

I should highlight once again for the Premier for him to pay attention now, for him to open his eyes, because that's what British Columbians have been saying to him and what the opposition has been saying to him. That is that the government, in its restructuring exercises while they undergo major budget cuts in the ministry, is going to hurt the ministry's children and families that they presume are going to be protected.

Everyone in the community — advocates in the communities, families in the communities — had been saying that all along, whether it be with the aboriginal community or non-aboriginal community fronts. That includes families with developmental disability challenges. That includes aboriginal children and families who have protection issues. That includes the community living sector. It is everybody within the ministry

that echoed with the same voice, and this government and this Premier refused to listen.

If he wants to know where I stand and where the opposition stands on the issue around regionalization, let me refer him to Hansard. Take the record and read it, and he will know exactly where we stand. I don't want the Premier's answer to detract from the questions that I want to put to him.

The Premier says: "Hey, the draft report is not different from that of the final report that's been released." Well then, let me be clear, Madam Chair, that it is not Ron Parks whose integrity I'm calling into question. Who I'm calling into question with respect to integrity, quite frankly, is this government and this Premier and this Deputy Premier, on this issue and on many other fronts. I will restrict it to this issue for the time being.

If the Premier says and would like to claim that everything is as is and that there have been no changes, then release the draft report so that the public could make that determination — or in the minimum, release the changes that took place. We know for a fact that the government had the report prior to it being released, and that was through our many FOI requests — a stack of them dating as far back as January.

What we do know over the last three years is this. You could not get information and drag it out of this government if your life depended on it. You have to go and FOI information every way to Sunday to try to get the information. We have FOI records dating as far back as January asking for the information. Our staff have been phoning every day to find an update on how it's going with respect to the FOI information that we requested.

We know that the government had a copy of the draft report. If the Premier is so certain there have been no changes, commit now to release the information to this House.

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me be clear again with what I said, if it wasn't understood. I want to reiterate it so that it is clear — right?

No. 1, what I said was that the only changes that would have been made would have been factual. I never saw a draft report. I have not seen a draft report. The report that I saw is the same report that the opposition saw.

No. 2, if the opposition feels that there have been changes, they can talk to Mr. Parks and see whether he feels this report actually should carry his name and, if you want, the professional seal of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

No. 3, the members opposite should know there have been no changes that have been requested by anyone in the Premier's office. We didn't see the report. It would be difficult for us to request changes. There were no changes requested by any elected member of the government. It would be difficult for them to request changes, since they never saw the draft report. The comptroller general, I'm sure, will confirm that there was no political direction with regard to this whatsoever.

Again, Madam Chair, let me say quite clearly that this is the report. This is the report that is open for the public. This is the report that was prepared by Ron Parks, the same person who did the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society investigation. This is the report, and these are the people who came forward and said that this is something of critical importance to the people of British Columbia. This is a report on what took place with CareNet, and I think that the conclusions are complete.

J. Kwan: Let me conclude with these comments, and then I will make the appropriate motion. Let me just say this. The Premier, just moments ago, stood up and spoke with authority. He was absolutely sure that there have been no changes to the final report around the Doug Walls scandal. Then in the same breath, he gets up and says: "Well, I never saw the report." You can't have it both ways, Madam Chair. How could one get up and say, "Well, gee, there has been no change," yet the Premier by his own admission hadn't seen the reports?

I will grant the Premier this. If in fact what he says is true, it can be verified very simply. Table the report for the public to see, the draft report that was received by the government at the end of April. Table that draft report so that we could make that comparison and arrive, hopefully, at the same determination this Premier has arrived at. It is that simple. It really is not that complicated.

Let me just be clear. The issue isn't about Ron Parks or Pricewaterhouse. The issue is the record of this government and this Premier. Let me remind members of this House that it is this very Premier who said he wouldn't sell B.C. Rail, and he turned around and sold

B.C. Rail. It is this very Premier who promised health care workers that he would not rip their contracts and then turned around and ripped their contracts. I ask you, Madam Chair: based on that record, whose words do you take? Who could you trust?

I would have a lot more questions for the Premier on this issue, but noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.