Hansard — Monday, May 5, 2008 p.m. — Vol. 32, No. 4 (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		11941

Statements		11941
	Holocaust Memorial Day
	Hon. G. Campbell

Introductions by Members		11941

Tributes		11942
	B.C. teams at National Aboriginal Hockey Championships
	Hon. M. de Jong

Introductions by Members		11942

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		11942
	Health and safety initiatives at Victoria Chinese Public School
	R. Fleming
	Holocaust Memorial Day
	I. Black
	Child care
	C. Trevena
	University designation for Capilano College
	J. McIntyre
	Housing and homelessness
	D. Chudnovsky
	Richmond Rotary Club gala for seniors
	J. Yap

Oral Questions		11945
	Child in the Home of a Relative program
	C. James
	Hon. T. Christensen
	N. Simons
	M. Karagianis
	A. Dix
	Government action on forest industry
	D. Routley
	Hon. R. Coleman
	B. Simpson
	N. Macdonald

Second Reading of Bills		11950
	Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 21) (continued)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Health Care Costs Recovery Act (Bill 22)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	A. Dix
	B. Ralston
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Election Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 42)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	L. Krog
	B. Ralston
	D. Chudnovsky
	C. Puchmayr

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		11977
	Estimates: Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	J. Horgan
	D. Routley
	K. Conroy

Hon. L. Reid: With us are today are four members of the Provincial Child Care Council: co-chair Amy Collum, Little Ferns young parent program in Nanaimo; Brenda Gottfried, Freedom Child Care Centre in Victoria; Rebecca Scott, Our Children's Centre Society of greater Victoria; and Bruce Hallsor, our parent rep from Crease Harmon and Co., Victoria.

It was my pleasure to join them for lunch and to share with them copies of the proclamation to proclaim May as Child Care Month in British Columbia.

I would ask the House to please join me in thanking them for their valuable contribution to children and families in the province of British Columbia and to welcome them to the Legislature today.

D. Routley: I would like the House to help me make three guests welcome. First, Jesse Winfrey. Jesse is a Duncan city councillor. He and I go back to, I think, seven years old as Cub Scout buddies. I think our troop was expelled from the church we were in. That tells you a little about our behaviour at that point. We're much better behaved now. I would like everybody to help me make Jesse Winfrey welcome from the city of Duncan.

Then if I could add two of my guests. Jenny Martin and Liz Peters are Cowichan Tribes elders, and they've come to join us and visit with the opposition to discuss some of their issues.

Hon. G. Campbell: Today we have representatives of our Jewish community here to help remember the Holocaust and Holocaust Memorial Day — in the House, as they have been here for the last few years. We remember more than six million victims lost in the Holocaust. We pay tribute to the men, women and children who were victims of racism and intolerance, and we honour those who have survived.

In the gallery today, we're honoured to be joined by survivors of the Holocaust and the families of survivors: Rita Akselrod, Ben Akselrod, Zev Bak, Nikki Basuk, Amalia Boe Fishman, Bob Boekbinder, Lillian Boraks Nemetz, Alex Buckman, Charles Carl, Saul Cohn, Sophie Cymbalista, Jody Dales, Dr. Abraham Deston, Susi Deston, Mark Elster, Sara Engelberg, Arieh Engelberg, Izzi Fraeme, Diana Friedman, Matilda Gertner, Jason Gertner, Debbie Gertner, Esfira Golger, Benji Gorodnitsky, Gregory Gorodnitsky, Myer Grinshpan, Pola Hister, Vladimir Hopner, Frances Hoyd, Jane Janson, Lisa Kafka, Rachel Katz, Katusha Khmelnitsky, Dr. David Kirk, Vladimir Levit, Ella Levit, Maurice Lipkavitz, Sara Mendelbaum, Lola Mendelson, Goldie Miller, Joseph Polinsky, Alla Polinsky, Maya Rivkis, Yakov Rivkis, Edith Rothfels, Horst Rothfels, Jack Rozen, Doreen Rozen, Robert Rubenfeld, Gertrude Rubenfeld, Shelly Seidelman, David Shaffer, Sidi Shafer, Rita Shapiro, John Sitwell, Raya Sitwell, Gerald Stanford, Elizabeth Stern, Bente Thomsen, Michael Vainer, Leo Vogel, Jacob Wardy, Veronica Winkler, Rachel Wosk, Sally Zimmerson, Voron Zoia and Iakov Zoia.

Together today in this House and in this time in this province, we honour their experiences, their sacrifices and in doing so reaffirm our collective commitment to never forget and to never waver in our defence of freedom and our condemnation of hatred, violence and intolerance.

N. Macdonald: I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce members of the Council of Tourism Associations. We very much appreciate the work that they do, and we enjoyed joining them this morning. I hope members will join me in making them feel welcome.

K. Whittred: On behalf of yourself, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce some special visitors who are in the gallery this afternoon. Marcus Kurschat and his wife Janis are visiting from Qualicum Beach. They are here with their three sons Marcus Jr., Jack and Michael.

They have enjoyed a very special tour of the building today, and I hope they will also enjoy watching our proceedings this afternoon. Would the House please join me in a very warm welcome for this family.

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce Rick and Shelley Fontaine from Fruitvale. Rick is the financial secretary for Local 480 United Steelworkers, and he is also a carpenter at Teck Cominco. Shelly works for the school district in Trail. I know that this is their first time to Victoria, so please join me in welcoming them to the House.

Hon. G. Hogg: I am delighted to introduce ten individuals who do a great deal to promote the city of White Rock. They are Evan Palmer, White Rock ambassador; Katie Dolmat, White Rock ambassador; and Emily Davies, White Rock ambassador; the friendship ambassador, Alexa Posch; White Rock princess, Kyaelim Kwon; Miss White Rock, Courtney Crowson; and B.C. ambassador Samantha Schapp; along with their coordinators and support, Debbie Ward, Donna Beaudry and Sharon Crowson. Would the House please make them most welcome.

C. Trevena: I had the pleasure of having lunch with two members of the Council of Tourism Associations:

Craig Murray, who is a director and also runs the fishing lodge Nimmo Bay, and Brian Gunn from Strathcona Park Lodge. They are in the precincts for meetings to promote the importance of tourism to our province's economy, and I hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. K. Krueger: I have the privilege of introducing Lee Morris today. Lee is the CEO of Tourism Kamloops. She grew up here on the south Island and made her fame down here and was inexorably drawn to the Thompson valleys to continue her career. It's a place where she owns cows, horses and acreage and does a wonderful job as CEO. Would everyone please make Lee Morris welcome.

C. Wyse: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming a constituent of mine from the Williams Lake area, Kimberley Burgoyne, who is with the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association. She has joined her colleagues today to promote this great industry of ours, tourism here in British Columbia. Please make them welcome.

R. Hawes: Because seating was so difficult in the gallery, my guest is actually sitting across the hall in my office watching this on TV. So I'm hoping we can send a good welcome to Linnea Battel, the co-director of Aboriginal Tourism B.C. She is also the director of Xa:ytem, which is a 9,000-year-old Salish village in Mission, where I live. For those who were interested in seeing what life was like 9,000 years ago, I commend you to an SFU website, www.sfu.museum/time. There is an unbelievable website that shows the whole Salish village.

Hon. S. Hagen: There are actually 50 representatives from COTA, the Council of Tourism Associations, in the House and in the precincts today. They are representing all sectors of the tourism industry. They are spending the day meeting with cabinet ministers and with MLAs.

I would like to thank Jim Storie, who is the chair of the board of directors, and Stephen Regan, president and CEO, for organizing COTA's visit and for the excellent work that they do on behalf of the many tourism associations and businesses in the province of British Columbia. Would the House join me in making Jim, Stephen and all of the COTA representatives feel very welcome.

J. McIntyre: Since it appears to be COTA day, I just wanted to add good wishes to Dave Clark and hope the House will make him feel welcome. He comes from a hotel background and works at Tourism Whistler, and he is also here for the meeting.

J. Yap: It's my pleasure to ask the House to acknowledge the presence in the legislative precincts of a group of 202 grade 11 students from the great school Robert A. McMath Secondary School in my riding of Richmond-Steveston.

They're here to visit the legislative precincts, the museum and other important parts of our capital city as part of their program on learning and being here in the Legislature to learn firsthand about our parliamentary traditions in their courses at school. They're with about 20 adults led by Ms. Monique Vonk, who is a grade 11 socials teacher. Would the House please welcome this group of young people.

I'd like to add, if I may, a special welcome to the precincts to my favourite grade 11 student, my son Michael Yap, who is with his group of classmates on this visit. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: Over the weekend, the National Aboriginal Hockey Championships took place in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and British Columbia sent two teams. These were bantam- and midget-age players. We sent a men's team and a women's team. They hailed from across the province with a little bit of help from a few players from the Yukon.

I had a chance to meet them on their return to British Columbia at YVR, Vancouver, yesterday and got a chance to see the bronze medal that the women's team won. I know that everyone in this House wants to send to the players, the coaches, the support, the parents — everyone who made the trip possible — a hearty thanks for representing us so well and congratulations for their success.

C. Evans: I see my friend Marcia Braundy upstairs there. Actually, the last time I introduced her, she was Marcia. Now she's Dr. Marcia Braundy. Could everyone please welcome her with the appropriate due respect.

R. Fleming: I'd like to inform the House about an initiative that the Capital Region Housing Corporation is undertaking as part of their activities for North American Occupational Safety and Health Week.

In previous years the housing corporation has worked with children living in housing complexes to promote safety at home. Last year focused on what tenants can do for emergency preparedness. This year the housing corporation decided to reach out to their corporate neighbours. Across the street from the CRD building on Fisgard Street is the Chinese Public School, a historic building with religious, cultural and educational significance in our community and an enduring icon of Victoria's Chinatown.

The school was delighted to have their students participate in promoting health and safety, and the housing corporation is proud to be working with the school in the year that they will be celebrating their 100th birthday in the city of Victoria.

The project with the school has two main components. The first component is fire safety. The school has arranged with the city of Victoria fire department for a full simulation fire drill. The successful drill involves the use of fire trucks and gives students the opportunity to explore firefighting equipment, hear about fire-containment strategy and talk with real firefighters. The fire safety aspect also involved the housing corporation assisting with the school's preparation of a fire safety plan that includes what to do in case of fire, and posters in both English and Cantonese.

The second component of this project involves the school children themselves creating posters about any safety theme they choose that is related to fire. The housing corporation has provided all of the art materials. Three weeks later, I'm proud to say that 60 posters have been returned by the students.

Today David Ganong, who is chair of the Capital Region Housing Corporation, and Whyte Cheung, a prominent member of the Chinese community, are making the selection of the winning posters for the three different student age groups. The posters are going to be displayed in the main lobby of the CRD headquarters building before going back to the school for a celebration on Thursday, May 8, which will honour the winning posters with prizes for the students.

I invite all members of this House to join me in thanking the housing corporation, who do so much for their residents and their families in my community, and to extend wishes to the Chinese school on their 100th birthday.

I. Black: The Holocaust — a horror the size and scope of which defies comprehension. Six million Jews, 1.5 million children and thousands of Jewish communities obliterated forever. In addition, the Nazis also persecuted and murdered hundreds of thousands of others based on their physical or mental disabilities, race, religion, politics or sexual orientation.

A memorial was held today in the Legislature with approximately 100 guests in attendance, including Holocaust survivors and their children. We observe and we honour Holocaust Memorial Day to remember and support those who perished, those who suffered and those who survived.

The Holocaust is a solemn and poignant reminder of how important our own individual roles are in fighting injustice — how we all have individual responsibilities towards our fellow citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality. We must take heed of the importance of remembering such atrocities. Simply put, never again can we let hatred, racism, persecution and genocide take root and harm our fellow human beings. Never again can indifference and inaction trump courage and moral righteousness.

We must actively stand against victimization and persecution, no matter how apparently benign the form or isolated the case. As time continues its steady march and the voices of the survivors become fewer, the mantle passes to us to ensure that our children and then their children are taught the individual and active obligation to oppose such hatred.

Noted philosopher and Holocaust historian John Roth wrote: "Questions about the fate of Holocaust memory should concern us…because the quality of human life itself depends greatly on what we remember, how we remember and why we remember." And so we remember. In doing so, we also incubate hope that this great reminder of past injustices will provide greater assurance, one person at a time, that we can live in a truly peaceful and just society.

I would ask all present to stand and join me in a moment of silence and recognition of Holocaust Memorial Day and all those it commemorates.

C. Trevena: Jason was sitting on a little chair at a low table at a child care centre while his ten-month-old son tottered around, eager to explore all the possibilities as young minds and newly stumbling bodies are wont to do.

Jason's daughter goes to the centre for two days a week, and he'd love it if his infant son could also attend. It would mean that he and Melanie, his wife, could spend some time together. At the moment they work on opposite shifts at the hospital so they can look after the children. He's a manager working days. She's a maternity and pediatric nurse on nights. They are both exhausted.

Jason knows it's not just his family who faces this daily problem. As a manager, he says it's hard to get nurses and almost impossible to get them on overtime, and lack of child care is one of the reasons.

The child care centre we're meeting in has 12 spaces for infant and toddlers — that's for babies from birth to 18 months — but only four of those spaces can be used. That's because the centre can't find the staff to work there. Like everywhere in child care, the pay, which starts at $12 an hour, is too low to live on as a single income, and there are no benefits. In this community of 4,000, there are 34 parents on the wait list at this centre. Fourteen of them are looking for infant and toddler care. But the trained early childhood educators are leaving child care for other work.

For all the mind-inspiring puzzles and activities, the bright rooms hung with kids' art, the picture is bleak across the province. Wait lists are long in centres in every community, parents are frantic, and care providers are burnt out. City halls and chambers of commerce recognize the crisis, and the child care community is finding unlikely allies. But allies alone are not enough.

May is Child Care Month. It's a time to salute the hard work and dedication of those child care

providers. It's a time to recognize the role that child care plays in our communities and in all our society. Let's also make it a time for celebration.

J. McIntyre: I rise today to applaud the significant dream that after tremendous community collaboration has been realized for the North Shore, Howe Sound and Sunshine Coast region.

On April 25 the North Shore MLAs were honoured to attend a historic ceremony at Capilano College, where the Premier announced to a packed house the exciting news that Capilano College would soon become Capilano University.

Capilano College was established 40 years ago in a high school setting in West Vancouver and has now grown to campuses in North Vancouver, Squamish and the Sunshine Coast. Not only does it have a growing reputation across the province, but it has received significant international attention, boasting hundreds of international students.

Capilano College and its president, Greg Lee, are leaders in expanding 21st century post-secondary education, in meeting training needs in the region and in continuing to increase their reputation in teaching excellence. Capilano College is already recognized in key areas of specialization including tourism and outdoor recreation programs, not to mention that they have the biggest film program in western Canada.

I'm delighted that our province has taken the necessary steps in several communities across the province to recognize the important role of teaching-intensive community institutions, the calibre of their staff and the top-quality programming by raising them to university status. Thanks to a well-supported public campaign following the release of the Campus 2020 report, thousands of students will have the opportunity to gain access to degree programs closer to home.

With the university designation, Capilano will be in an enhanced position to attract students, faculty and donors. They're anticipating increasing the number of degree programs offered, an upwards spiral. In the Sea to Sky corridor Capilano has been working to build a new campus in downtown Squamish to expand offerings and to consolidate its designation as a B.C. centre for tourism, leadership and innovation.

The good news will boost efforts and provide a complement to Quest University in creating a hub of educational opportunities in the area. Congratulations to all those who worked in the region to secure the designation, and a special tribute to Dr. Greg Lee and his active team.

D. Chudnovsky: On Saturday in communities across the province, British Columbians met on street corners to hold more than 75 Stands for Housing. These non-partisan events were organized and supported by groups and individuals that reflect our province's incredible diversity — the Citywide Housing Coalition; Anglican, United, Unitarian and Lutheran churches; teachers associations; the Carnegie action project; Streams of Justice; the B.C. Federation of Labour and the CLC; the North Shore Shalom Seekers; Renters Voice; Faith in Action; the Vancouver and Victoria Labour Councils; Community Advocates for Little Mountain; and many more.

Perhaps most significantly, the students council at Woodlands Secondary School in Nanaimo sponsored and organized one of the stands.

Most counts put the homeless numbers in B.C. conservatively at more than 10,000. That's about the population of Williams Lake. If tomorrow there were a flood or fire in Williams Lake and everybody lost their homes, we as a province would do something about it and quickly. Because we are decent and caring, British Columbians would make sure that those people had somewhere to live.

That's what we face. We have a population in our province equal to or greater than the population of Williams Lake with nowhere to live. We as legislators have a special responsibility when it comes to homelessness. British Columbians expect that we will do everything in our power to resolve the crisis and quickly.

I ask everyone on both sides of the House, all 79 of us, to commit ourselves to ending homelessness in our province. I thank all of those who took part in the Stands for Housing, who called our attention to the crisis and reminded us of our responsibility to find solutions.

J. Yap: Charity and volunteerism abound in our province and in my community. Today I would like to recognize the charitable work of a group of Richmond individuals. On April 20, I had the honour of attending the Rotary Club of Richmond inaugural Tribute to Seniors Gala, which was the brainchild of Peter Raju, the club's president.

When visiting his 85-year-old mother in a seniors care facility some time ago, Peter came to realize that many seniors are lonely and do not have friends or family to visit them. He decided to make it his priority to better the lives of seniors in the community. So the Tribute to Seniors Gala was born. The exquisite black-tie evening well surpassed the fundraising goal of $100,000 as funds pledged totalled $350,000. The funds will help to enhance the various care facilities in Richmond, including Lions Manor, Rosewood Manor and the Salvation Army Rotary Hospice House. The money will help with renovations and pay for new equipment for the facilities.

The soirée not only raised money for seniors projects but showed appreciation for the contributions that seniors make in the community — seniors who helped

build our province and served our country in peacetime and in war, seniors who sacrificed and worked hard to provide us with what we enjoy today.

I would like to extend a big thank-you especially to Richmond philanthropists Milan and Maureen Ilich as well as Eugene Greczmiel, who each donated $100,000 to this cause. I ask the House to join me in thanking the Rotary Club of Richmond, Peter Raju and all the Rotarians, sponsors, volunteers and donors who helped to make this gala a tremendous success.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, today British Columbians were once again shocked and saddened to learn about another child whom this government failed. She was four years old when the government took her out of a foster home and placed her with her grandmother. This little girl was then beaten and neglected. She never should have been placed in that home, but the government moved ahead without a home study.

My question is to the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. Can he confirm that this Prince George child was placed under his ministry's Child in the Home of a Relative program? And can he further confirm that once placed under this program, children receive no protection services or monitoring?

Hon. T. Christensen: Clearly, the circumstances of this case as reported by the media are unacceptable. This is a horrendous situation of neglect and abuse, and it deserves society's strongest condemnation. We do condemn it.

As members opposite will know, privacy considerations under the Child, Family and Community Service Act do limit the information that we're allowed to make public, but I can advise members that this was not a child that was in care of the ministry. When the ministry was advised that there might be a child in need of protection, the ministry acted immediately. The child was removed. The RCMP investigated. Charges were laid.

The ministry's involvement in this case has been the subject of a director's review within the ministry that resulted in five recommendations, and I am pleased to advise the House that all of those recommendations have now been completed.

C. James: It's critical that lessons be learned from every one of these tragic cases. It's critical that we take a look at all government programs, whether it's the Ministry of Income Assistance or the Ministry of Children and Families, to look at where there are gaps. There are gaps in the Child in the Home of a Relative program, whether with this specific case or other cases in British Columbia.

This is a case that is being done to save money. Kith-and-kin programs, Child in the Home of a Relative and other out-of-care options are being done because they're cheaper. Under this government, the number of vulnerable children who've been placed into these kinds of out-of-care options has increased 14 percent. That's hundreds of children, not just this specific case but hundreds of children.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Can he please explain to us why more children are going into programs without child protection services, without monitoring, without accountability and without home studies? How does that protect the vulnerable children that the minister said he wants to protect?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition completely mischaracterizes out-of-care options. All research suggests that we need to be looking for ways to keep children safe with their families, with extended family, rather than taking them into the care of strangers. Certainly, there will always be circumstances where children must come into care to ensure their safety. But the ministry will continue to work with extended family, with relatives and with others in the community to try and place children safely in homes that are familiar to them, because that is what best practices require.

That is not an excuse to not be vigilant in ensuring a child's safety, and the ministry will continue to be vigilant in ensuring that safety.

C. James: Looking after children means making sure that checks and balances are in place. Looking after children — whether they're placed with a relative or in a foster home, but they're placed by government — means making sure that those home studies are in place. It means making sure that those children are being checked on. That's not happening right now. There aren't enough checks and balances.

If we take a look at this specific case, in fact, the government made the decision to put this child into her grandmother's home. The government made the decision to cut the Ministry of Children and Families budget, and the consequences in this province have been tragic. This government looked at cutting costs rather than looking at protecting the most vulnerable.

So my question is to the minister. Will he stand up in this House today and take a look at out-of-care options, whether it's Child in the Home of a Relative or kith and kin, and insist that those programs put in place the supports that the most vulnerable children need in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: The ministry is continually reviewing the different care options to ensure that they work for children and ensure children's safety. The

Leader of the Opposition wishes to characterize cuts in budgets. The reality is that today the budget for child and family services within the Ministry of Children and Family Development is 30 percent higher than it was in 2000-2001.

We have over 300 additional FTEs dedicated to child and family services within the ministry than we did two and a half years ago. We have a full staffing complement in the north, which is a dramatic improvement over where we were — at under 60 percent — a decade ago.

Improvements are being made. We will continue to be vigilant so that in any circumstance where things do not go the way that anyone in this House would like, we learn from those, and we can ensure that we continually improve services to ensure that children in our province are safe.

N. Simons: This government has had seven years to learn from its own mistakes. They've had opportunity after opportunity to close the gaps. The opposition has been demanding it, the people of the province have been demanding it, the media is getting on the case of the minister, and he still refuses to act. In the case of the Child in the Home of a Relative or out-of-care options, we know that it's cheaper and it's faster, and it makes the workload lighter. But we know of the damages and the dangers involved.

When will this minister do what he said he would do and allow the Representative for Children and Youth to have oversight over this program for the 4,000 or so children who are placed under this program?

Hon. T. Christensen: The Child in the Home of a Relative program is a program that assists people who require financial support when they have a child relative living with them. We have implemented a screening process that the ministry undertakes for those who are applying to get benefits from the Child in the Home of a Relative program through Employment and Income Assistance.

That screening is a significant improvement. It was undertaken in direct response to the child and youth officer's report of some time ago. It is a dramatic improvement on that program since the members opposite were in government, and it's the type of example of how we will continue to improve programs to ensure that they are meeting the needs of children and families across the province.

N. Simons: That doesn't really answer the question. British Columbians want to know if the system is getting better or getting worse, and all evidence suggests that things are in chaos in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The social workers are telling us that, and it's clear from the evidence we have before us.

Never before have social workers been asked to put children under Child in the Home of a Relative. This is a new policy direction change, and it's one that requires some oversight. This ministry's refusal to provide that is a shame on this province.

Will the minister acknowledge that all out-of-care placements, options for children, options for social workers and options for families are safe and secure and have the proper oversight to ensure that our most vulnerable children are safe?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated, we reviewed the Child in the Home of a Relative program together with the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. We indicated to social workers in the ministry and across the province that the Child in the Home of a Relative program is not to be used as a child welfare program. It is an income assistance program.

Where there is a child that is found to be in need of protection and we're looking for a placement with a relative, we can look to the kith-and-kin program as an option to pursue, placing them with family — again, ensuring that proper reviews of the home are done to ensure that children are safe in that home.

M. Karagianis: What a complete and abject failure of this government on this file.

The Child in the Home of a Relative program. A child is placed without a review, without a home study, and MCFD simply closes the file. The Minister of Income Assistance opens the file but does nothing in the way of child protection. It is simply a financial arrangement, as the minister has just admitted. This government is placing more and more children into this program, and it is an absolute failure.

Here we have the latest tragedy, which is a child who went from a foster home into the home of a relative, and subsequently a tragedy occurred. I know that when he was questioned about this in estimates by the current critic, he said here that the Child in the Home of a Relative program is actually an income assistance program. It's not a child protection program — washed his hands of it completely.

The Minister of Children and Families has a responsibility. I would like to ask him today: when will this program be transferred into the appropriate hands? To the Minister of Children and Family Development: do the right thing today and transfer this program into your own department, where these children can be protected.

Hon. T. Christensen: Well, it's always helpful if members opposite can listen to the answers before they go on to the next question. The Child in the Home of a Relative program is an income assistance program; it is not a child welfare program. If a child is found to be in need of protection, placing them in the Child in the Home of a Relative program is not the avenue that the ministry is to pursue. They are to look at kith-and-kin options.

I know that the members opposite don't like us to consider kith-and-kin, but the reality and all best practices from around the world tell us that we should

do our best to try and ensure that children can stay safe with their family, with their extended family, with their community before we take them into the care of strangers. That's exactly what the ministry is doing.

M. Karagianis: Well, clearly the protections are not in place, and that is the problem here. Protections are not in place. Once these children get moved into the home of a relative, there are no protections and oversight in place.

The Children and Youth Representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, asked the government back in April of 2007 — over a year ago — for jurisdiction over these children. There are some 4,000 children — perhaps as high as 4,700 — in the home of a relative, and they are not under her jurisdiction.

We have canvassed this repeatedly. I canvassed this with the minister in estimates last year. The question now is whether or not this jurisdiction is going to be extended.

Will the Minister of Children and Families stop dragging his feet on this file, this part of the file, and extend the jurisdiction of the Children and Youth Representative to cover children in the home of a relative?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated, in each circumstance we will look at the option that is best to ensure a child's safety. In some cases, that means a child will be taken into care in one of the very capable foster homes across our province, with foster parents who provide an exceptional service to children across our province. But we will always look to extended family to see if we can look for a foster placement there or a kith-and-kin agreement, because we know that those are in the best interests of the child.

We have reviewed the Child in the Home of a Relative program with the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance to ensure that there is a screening component before somebody is eligible for income assistance. We have in place the proper precautions to ensure child safety across the province today.

A. Dix: Well, the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance is responsible in this House for Child in the Home of a Relative. He's responsible in this House. The number of children in the homes of relatives has increased by a very significant margin — more, actually, than the total number of children who are involved in the kith-and-kin program. There are 600 more children in that program today than there were five years ago.

My question to the minister is this. Why is it that more children are being placed in this program? The number of children in foster care is going down. The number of children in this program is going dramatically up. What are the results of the review? This case happened in 2006. Since then the government has been stonewalling — from the Attorney General to the Minister of Income Assistance to the Minister of Children and Families — from allowing the child representative to take over responsibility.

If it's the case that we've had an increase of 600 children, why is that the case? Is the minister assuring this House today that every single one of those 600 incremental cases has received the proper review?

Hon. T. Christensen: Well, the member seems to be suggesting that if any family in this province — for what could be a host of reasons — decides to place one of their children with an uncle, with an aunt or with a grandparent, somehow the Ministry of Children and Family Development should swoop in and investigate that situation. Families make arrangements all the time for their children to be cared for without the involvement of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

We get involved when there is a child protection concern. We respond to over 30,000 reports of a child who may be in need of protection each and every year. In each circumstance we determine….

Hon. T. Christensen: In each circumstance where there's a report, we follow up to determine whether or not a child is in need of protection. If they're in need of protection, we look to kith-and-kin arrangements with a relative or to a foster placement to ensure the safety of that child.

A. Dix: It's very simple. The Minister of Employment and Income Assistance right now is responsible for these children. He is responsible. There's been a dramatic increase in the number of children in this program. If what the minister says is true, that shouldn't be happening — 600 new children incremental, an increase in this program.

My question is very simple to the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. What is the reason? If they aren't diverting — to save money — children into this program, what is the reason for the dramatic increase in Child in the Home of a Relative in his ministry?

Hon. T. Christensen: Again, families will make a number of arrangements for the care of their children. The Child in the Home of a Relative program was reviewed between the two ministries. It was determined

that it is an income assistance program. It is not a child welfare program. It is not a program where the Ministry of Children and Family Development is to be placing children. We will continue, where there is a child in need of protection, to look to kith-and-kin arrangements and look to foster placements where that best meets the needs of children.

D. Routley: I think I'm rising for the weekly job loss report from the forest-dependent communities of Vancouver Island, and it's just intended to bring the minister up to speed on his own file.

Last week 1,000 more jobs disappeared overnight; this week, 800. Add the 272 in Fort St. James, and you've got another thousand. Those jobs fell through not because of markets, but because of that minister's failed policies. They have failed to ensure log supplies for mills.

What will it take to bring this minister down from the bleachers? He could ensure that fibre. He could save those jobs. Will he do it?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're working with stakeholders on the community development trust, which will be launched shortly, for the transition of workers and for the ability of people to go get further education.

We've canvassed in this House before that none of us are happy about the job losses and the situation that faces us in the forest sector today. That's why we continue to work with communities and companies, and we continue to try and move the fibre supply in an economical way. That's why we're doing the regulatory review — to create even more efficiencies within the system.

As we do that, we're always going to keep in mind the families. That's why the community development trust and the other things that we're doing are going to be very important for the future of the province.

D. Routley: Well, at least we've made progress. The minister acknowledges that nobody likes it. That's something. But 535 families in Harmac, the third-poorest riding in this province, found out that they are losing their jobs because the Pope and Talbot deal fell through.

This is not bad markets; this is bad policy. The minister determines log policy. My constituents are not mere chips in some Monopoly game for this minister. This is important. These are families. These are the volunteers of my community.

Will the minister do his job? Will he use the policy tools he has to guarantee chip logs, to guarantee fibre supply and to do what he needs to do? Save those jobs.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, surely the member opposite isn't saying that we're responsible for one company deciding not to buy another company through the courts.

Hon. R. Coleman: I mean, I don't know whether the member is asking us to go buy the pulp mill at Harmac and spend half a billion dollars like they did on Skeena Cellulose, or whether we let these people continue to negotiate like they are right now to see if they can find a future for that mill.

B. Simpson: The Minister of Forests historically and currently by legislation has one primary focus — maximize the return to British Columbians from the utilization of our forest resources. That's all we're asking him to do. We're asking him to do his job.

Now, when this minister has been awake and has acted on the coast, he created a monopoly on the coast by allowing a Pac-Man game to occur, allowing companies to buy each other up so that logs are not free to move around on Vancouver Island. He released private lands from tree farm licences and took whole thousands of other hectares out of the mill profile on Vancouver Island.

Then he changed the stumpage system and the rules for logging waste so that the reality just now is that wood that is needed for the Harmac deal to be sweetened and for Catalyst Paper to run is lying on the forest floor because of this minister's forest policy.

My question to this minister is this. It's a very simple, straightforward question. Will the minister examine the forest policy that he's done, look at the implications and get a guaranteed source of fibre to Harmac to sweeten that deal for a potential buyer? Will he do that?

Hon. R. Coleman: So, if I get this straight, the critic would like me to subsidize one company over another in the province of British Columbia. Maybe the Celgar mill should have a little less advantage within the marketplace than one other, because he'd like us to go change the marketplace and pricing for the fibre for British Columbians.

As we're going through this regulatory review that we're doing right now, we're looking at what the member describes with regards to cutblock blending and those sort of things, but….

Hon. R. Coleman: Quite frankly, we're working with the proponents and the people that are interested in Harmac to see if we can actually find a way for that deal to get together.

B. Simpson: We're not asking the minister to subsidize anything. We're not asking the minister to step in

His forest policy means that the waste on the forest land base has doubled over the last three years. The pulp logs are lying on the ground because of his forest policy. We're asking him to change that policy and get those pulp logs in so that Catalyst can keep their people employed, so that the 525 jobs at Harmac can be maintained and that deal could be sweetened for a potential buyer.

That's one of the critical factors at risk here — the fact that there's no fibre with that mill. Will the minister just simply do his job and make sure that fibre is secured for these mills?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've actually met with some of the people in the pulp and paper industry in the last week, who tell me that they're looking for different types of fibre and that they're trying to get on the land base. They're looking at their costs and all of those things, and they have some concerns about the delivered wood costs even if they were able to go get some of the waste.

We also have the issue with regards to waste, and everybody in this House knows I've said I don't like the waste situation in this Legislature. The critic knows that as well. That's why we're also aggressively pursuing bioenergy to try and get some integration so that we can move the fibre to these places to get success.

I understand, Member, that you're disappointed in the Harmac situation, and so am I. I thought we had a buyer. We thought we had a buyer. They backed out. They didn't complete the sale at the end of April. Now somebody else is looking at the particular operation. We hope that we can work with whoever it is to try to find solutions for that mill.

N. Macdonald: Paragon Wood Products in the Okanagan has a strong market for its products. It has employees; it has operations. What it needs is logs. There is no fibre available, and that is a direct result of a deliberate public policy put in place by this minister and this government.

The minister responsible for forestry in this province can do something. He has promised Paragon he will do something. They're still waiting. When will the minister do his job? When will he provide logs to this company so that they can keep the jobs in rural B.C. that this province has been built on?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite: just so he knows, my ministry is actually working with that organization on the issues with the logs in the Interior of British Columbia.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, for that member…. I think he should know one other thing. The biggest single threat to the future of the rest of the forest sector in British Columbia is if you took a policy and abrogated your position under the softwood lumber deal in the province of British Columbia. You have taken that position. Today, if that was the case, the cost for the Downey Street mill in Revelstoke would be such that the mill wouldn't be able to be competing and operating in your community today. The reality is….

Hon. R. Coleman: Absolutely true, hon. Member. Absolutely functionally true. I've sat down with the mill operator and heard that.

Hon. R. Coleman: We are doing everything we can, every time we can, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, meeting with people and trying to find solutions to log supply in those issues in B.C. in a very difficult market. I'll continue to do that in spite of how many name-callings those people on the other side of the House want to use against me.

N. Macdonald: Does this minister think he is the first forestry minister to face tough markets? He is not. But he is the first minister to give up on the most important…. [Applause.]

It is public policy we are talking about. B.C. Liberal public policy in forestry has deliberately starved the value-added and remanufacturing sector since 2002. Operations have shut down. They continue to shut down.

The government's attitude is best expressed by…. This is from Paragon Wood Products, Andrew Powell. This is how he expresses it, an exact quote: "This government has decided it has no need of independent forest companies in the forest industry." Well, that's not the attitude of the rest of British Columbians, but it's this government's attitude.

Here's something else from Paragon. "This government gives us nothing but excuses, broken promises and policy decisions that can most charitably be described as idiotic." That's something that we see each and every question period when we ask a forest question.

The question is: when is the minister going to do his job? When is he going to get logs to Paragon so that company can continue to operate in B.C.?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is no way that we're giving up or that I've given up on the forest sector in the province of British Columbia. It does face some challenges, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. R. Coleman: In one of my round tables recently, a first nation member said to me….

You know what they said to me? They said this: "If the government had gone into Tweedsmuir Park, we wouldn't have a beetle kill in the province of British Columbia." They said that. They live there. They live on the land. It's their community — right?

Hon. R. Coleman: So $642 million invested by the province of British Columbia in the interior of B.C. on mountain pine beetle, $300 million invested by the federal government and $19 million in upgrading highways in the Interior to deal with the pine beetle epidemic, by the Ministry of Transportation. Hundreds of millions of dollars invested in projects overseas to build new markets — that's what it is.

We actually are doing our job. They may not like it, but we're doing a job to build a future for forests in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 21. In Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, it's the beginning of estimates, I believe, for the Ministry of Forests.

Hon. G. Abbott: Last Thursday, late in the afternoon just prior to the Lieutenant-Governor's arrival, I'd just risen for a moment to begin closure of second reading debate in respect of Bill 21. For those who have been sitting on pins and needles awaiting the completion of that, I remind members that I had mentioned, in response to the member's question — asked frequently over the course of four days, "Why add sustainability to the Medicare Protection Act…?" I was pleased to advise that, in fact, the term "sustainability" had been there since 1995 when then Health Minister Paul Ramsey had added it to the bill.

Apparently, judging by the member's comments, the term "sustainability" has taken on a nefarious conspiratorial cast since 1995. However, I also pointed out to the members that if they wanted to understand what we meant by sustainability, they might actually go to this bill of two pages and read that quote.

This is section 5.7: "The plan is administered in a manner that is sustainable over the long term, providing for the health needs of the residents of British Columbia and assuring that annual health expenditures are within taxpayers' ability to pay without compromising the ability of the government to meet the health needs and other needs of current and future generations." It's hardly the kind of nefarious conspiracy which we heard outlined so often, if not so effectively, over the four days that we had second reading discussion of this.

I thought, in some ways, the best kind of summary that might come of those four days of opposition submissions in respect of Bill 21 comes from the article which I referenced in my second reading comments by Janice MacKinnon, the former NDP Finance Minister in Saskatchewan during the Roy Romanow years. She's quite an academic now with the University of Saskatchewan and had done this quite thoughtful article, "The Arithmetic of Health Care," which I quoted from last time.

This is a different quote, but in a way I think this kind of characterizes what we spent so much time on last week:

I thought that was probably as good a summary as one might hope for from the debate of last week.

I know that on numerous occasions one heard a variety of fallacies, urban myths, falsehoods and misconstructions related to health care in this province in members' comments. For example, there were a number of suggestions about British Columbia not meeting the terms of the Canada Health Act and pointing, for example, to the fine in the most recent fiscal year of $29,019 to Health Canada — penalties for infractions of the Canada Health Act.

As it turns out, the largest-ever penalty in British Columbia — I think because we honestly report when we understand an infraction has occurred — came back in 1995 when this government was led by the NDP.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes. In fact, in that year, 1995, the penalty levied against British Columbia was $1.982 million — the penalty imposed on the NDP government of the day.

I also heard on a number of occasions suggestions that somehow the agenda of our government had been closing hospitals. Of course, I can tell the members opposite that, in fact, it was the NDP government

in British Columbia that had an agenda for closing hospitals. One needs only look at the CIHI report, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, to understand just how extensive that NDP agenda was.

I know this from personal experience with closures in Armstrong and Enderby of hospitals in my constituency, but when the NDP took office in 1990-91, there were 131 operating hospitals in British Columbia. By the time they had concluded their decade of decline in 2000-2001, they were down to 98 hospitals — 131 operating hospitals to 98 operating hospitals. And, of course, those are facts….

Hon. G. Abbott: Those are facts, I guess, that somehow get forgotten over the course of a decade, along with the fact that some 3,300 hospital beds were closed by the NDP during their dark decade as well.

I also heard, among other things during the debate, that there were problems with our six health authorities in British Columbia. Well, those can't hold a candle to the problems that existed in the 52 — count 'em — health authorities that existed back in the 1990s. In fact, back in the 1990s health authorities used to receive their budgets routinely in July or August. They didn't have a hope of managing effectively because of the government.

I think, most importantly, what I frequently heard — and I think objectionably so — was a lot of hysterical and hypocritical nonsense about private clinics in this province. In fact — and this is hard to believe given some of the rhetoric I heard — some 26 new private clinics were created in the province of British Columbia in the 1990s.

Where, I might ask, was the NDP when False Creek clinic was created in 1998? Where was the NDP when Cambie clinic was created? Apparently they were hiding in the Premier's office somewhere, because they clearly didn't do anything about those 26.

I heard this from the opposition Health critic just on Voice of B.C. or Voice of the Province the other night — that perhaps the NDP, when they get into power, will have to nationalize those private clinics. That's amazing how over the period of time they've moved from the pragmatic NDP of the 1990s, which allowed 26 private clinics to be created in this province, to now moving to nationalize — I'm sure at some considerable expense — those 26 private clinics.

That's a statement, I guess in a way, in terms of where the NDP are going. The new NDP apparently resembles something more akin to 19th century socialism as opposed to 21st century liberalism. There was a lot said in the debate about sustainability and the relationship between the gross domestic product versus the percentage of annual budgets that were…. Which one was the better way of understanding the issue of sustainability?

It was a fascinating debate. I heard references to Star Trek. I heard references to Seinfeld. I heard references to Star Wars. Weren't some of those from you perhaps, Member?

But what really caught my attention, in terms of what it reminded me of, was a magazine that I used to read in my adolescent years. Perhaps you did as well, Mr. Speaker, given that you're of approximately the same vintage as I am. That was a magazine probably best confined to adolescents called Mad magazine. The protagonist in Mad magazine was, Mr. Speaker, as you will recall….

Hon. G. Abbott: Alfred E. Neuman — right. And his slogan was: "What, me worry?" To me, there would be no better way of summarizing what the NDP had to say in that fascinating debate than "What, me worry?" because that was very much the theme of it.

There was a fascinating debate between whether we should view health care costs as a percentage of total gross domestic product or view it, as I would suggest, as a percentage of the provincial budget. This is a fascinating debate. About seven people, in addition to David Schreck, find this a fascinating debate across the province of British Columbia.

The reality, though, is that government doesn't create…. They don't manage, and they don't control the gross domestic product of the province. We manage, create and control the provincial budget, but we don't do all of those things with respect to the overall GDP. Government can influence GDP through their policies, no question, but they don't create, manage and control GDP.

So if the NDP wants to tie health spending to GDP…. What would happen — for example, in a sustainable health care world — if, because of the consequences of their inevitable high-tax policies, the GDP actually declines in this province? Would we then be obliged to reduce the health care budget in the province? Good question, but that would be, I think, one of the risks of undertaking that form of linkage between health care budgets and GDP.

I am sure — because this is something I've always wanted, and I'm sure some New Democrats would also agree to this — that what we'd all like, really, if we had the opportunity is a brand-new cherry-red Ferrari. I'm sure the member from Juan de Fuca…. Perhaps he has a cherry-red Ferrari in his garage, but if he doesn't, I'm sure he would, just like me, covet the opportunity to have such a thing — a beautiful new dream car, a cherry-red Ferrari in the driveway.

So my friend from Juan de Fuca and I could go into the Ferrari dealership — I don't know if there's one in Victoria or Vancouver — and check out the price tags on cherry-red Ferraris. I suspect that what we'd be advised as we worked through with the sales manager the payment scheme for this…. We would probably discover, he and I, that that would work out to about 97.5 percent of our available budget for the year. We'd say: "Well, it's going to be tough to manage food, mortgage payments, gas for the Ferrari and all the rest of the things on 2.5 percent of our annual budget."

But wait. If we lived in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the NDP, we could say: "We can have that cherry-red Ferrari, even though it's 97.5 percent of our budget. We can have it because it's only a very small proportion of the provincial gross domestic product. Of course we can have that."

That, in a nutshell, is the NDP's thinking of the 1990s. As I've said, that may be enlightened thinking compared to what we're going to see if we have an NDP government in the 21st century. But it is, in a nutshell, a great example of how that NDP thinking took British Columbia from first in Canada in terms of economic growth to worst in Canada in economic growth by the end of the 1990s. What, me worry? That would be pretty much how one would undertake that.

Looking at what was said during the four days last week, one would conclude that the NDP believes there are no sustainability challenges for the health care system in British Columbia and Canada — no sustainability challenges at all. They dismiss Janice MacKinnon, the former NDP Finance Minister in Saskatchewan and her thoughtful work. They dismiss all of the very obvious, overt facts regarding the demographic shift that is occurring in our society and will continue to shift in our society as we age over the next 30 or 40 years.

They dismiss all of the very troubling increases in the incidence of chronic disease in our society. They dismiss the spiralling costs of medical technology, medical inflation and all of those things. Again, "What, me worry?" is the NDP response to any sustainability challenge that emerges in our society.

The fact is — and I'll conclude on this point because I know there are many more things that the NDP would be looking forward to debating in this Legislature — yes, there is a sustainability challenge. In fact, there are many challenges to the sustainability of our health care system in British Columbia.

One, at their peril, mounts what I would term the NDP ostrich defence, which is to place one's head firmly in the sand and refuse to believe that anything is going on in the world around them. That's unfortunate, but that's what I heard continuously in here for four days — the ostrich defence against all. If you don't see it, it's not there — not a problem.

That is a problem, and if anything, in my mind it confirmed even more the necessity for that sustainability challenge to be very much rooted in the Medicare Protection Act. As the NDP moves forward in the future, they need to think about things like whether they want to nationalize the private clinics that they themselves created or whether they want to eliminate all of the provisions of Bill 29 and return again to a completely inflexible health care administration in this province.

They want to think again about whether…. If they're going to add $2 billion to the health care budget in British Columbia, is that going to come from taxes, or is that going to come from other areas of public enterprise?

These are very important issues. On this side of the House, we recognize that there are challenges to sustainability in British Columbia. Not only in this bill but in the bills to follow, we are going to equip this government, this province, with all of the tools that we need to try to meet that very grave sustainability challenge. We will meet that challenge, because on this side of the House we strongly believe in sustainability, and we're going to follow through with this principle.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 22, the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, be read now a second time.

During the first reading of Bill 22, the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, I explained that B.C. is the only province not to have legislation that would allow government to recover health care costs associated with personal injuries that stem from the negligence or wrongdoing of a third party.

Under the common law as it exists in British Columbia, government has no legal right to recover these costs. This is unlike other provinces with health care costs recovery legislation. In Manitoba, legislation took effect in 1992 under their Health Services Insurance Act. Saskatchewan brought in similar provisions in 1995 under the Department of Health Act.

The Health Care Costs Recovery Act will provide government with the ability to recover a broad range of health care costs, including past and future medical care, hospital, ambulance, continuing care and potentially other costs.

I'd like to give the House an example of where the lack of this type of legislation has impacted British Columbia's ability to involve itself in these types of court actions. In the case Medtronic v. Hoy, the province asserted its rights for reimbursement of medical and hospital costs expended to remove or replace defective pacemaker leads, which are now subject to a Health Canada advisory. Based on information from the third-party liability branch of the Ministry of Health and the number of claimants in the action, an estimate of the province's potential claim could have been approximately $4 million. The recoveries will be limited to expenditures currently paid by the province.

This act will strengthen government's ability to effectively participate in a number of class action suits where multi-million-dollar settlements or judgments are at stake. Over and above possible class actions, the act will provide government with the ability to recover an additional $3 million to $5 million annually for individual personal injury claims through these changes. Recovered costs collected by government from third parties can be reinvested into government programs and services that include health care.

Overall, the act will allow government to, first of all, recover health care costs once a lawsuit has been settled or adjudicated; secondly, request and obtain information required to quantify past and future health care costs associated with the personal injury; thirdly, approve settlements involving claims for health care costs; fourthly, ensure it will be able to participate in class action settlements; fifthly, ensure health care costs associated with wrongdoing and negligence are paid by wrongdoers or their insurance, rather than expecting B.C. taxpayers to absorb the costs; and finally, maintain a sustainable health care system for all British Columbians.

Government will be able to make recoveries using a claim in which it is subrogated to the rights of the beneficiary making a claim or by bringing its own independent cause of action against a third-party wrongdoer. The legislation will not apply to injuries stemming from the operation of a motor vehicle where the vehicle is insured in British Columbia, but will apply to vehicles insured out of province. The legislation will not apply to health care costs associated with smoking tobacco or to the health care costs which are part of the Workers Compensation Board scheme.

In conclusion, the Health Care Costs Recovery Act supports the ministry's goal of continued excellence in service, innovation and sustainable care delivery in a public health system for all British Columbians.

In closing, British Columbians want access to the best health services available from a sustainable health system, and the Health Care Costs Recovery Act supports this goal.

With that, I am pleased to move second reading, and I look forward to the comments of my colleagues in the chamber.

A. Dix: As I think the minister will agree, this is the kind of bill that we'll deal with at greatest length in committee stage. There are going to be some detailed questions we'd like to raise at that stage, so I think I'm going to keep my comments as brief as the minister's.

The opposition, speaking on behalf of the opposition, supports Bill 22. It seems to us to be a good idea, an idea — it sounds like from what the minister suggests — perhaps generated by the government's participation or non-participation in the Medtronic case.

As the minister has noted, the bill has a number of purposes. It allows — outside of Motor Vehicle Act cases and outside of Workers Compensation Act cases, as I understand it — the government to attempt to join such cases.

In fact, as I understand it — and the minister will go over this, as well, at committee stage — the government may, under these provisions of the act, be allowed to initiate its own case in such cases that individuals don't take the cases forward. The government will actually have to develop — part of this will be an interesting discussion for us — the ability to review circumstances in order to itself initiate cases.

Presumably the government or officials in the Ministry of Attorney General or officials in the Ministry of Health will have to develop the capacity if they want to do that. I presume that if they want to initiate cases as opposed to joining cases that are already brought forward, they will have to actually develop the capacity to do that as well.

Some of that discussion, I think, we'll have at committee stage because we'd have to assess…. I know they've had a little bit of an issue with that in Alberta — not with the specifics of this case, but with motor vehicle cases — in terms of the cost of reviewing the cases perhaps exceeding the potential gain that the government might get from bringing the cases forward.

I note that this case in some respects is similar, at least in principle, to the idea brought forward in the 1990s with the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act in the sense that it seeks to allow government to go to court and legitimately, I think, obtain for the public purse the costs imposed on the public by wrongful behaviour elsewhere.

I'm delighted that the government members, who at the time were in opposition — I think we called this speaking against a bill and voting in favour — raised many critical comments about that legislation at the time. The government was only interested in money and so on.

One of the key points raised in that debate at the time by several members of the opposition — not the current Minister of Health, I should say, who I think was the opposition critic for municipal affairs or something at the time, but other members — was to ensure that any moneys gained from such a case go to the health care system. Several members of the government, when the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act was brought in, suggested at the time that the bill was being brought in to deal with problems in the government's fiscal position and not a legitimate effort to recover costs from the health care system.

They were asking the question, and I think it's a legitimate question: can't we do something with the legislation to ensure that all costs that are obtained, that are recovered by the government in this kind of case — whether it would be a case like the Medtronic case or others — be returned to the health care system?

This isn't unusual. In fact, under a British law that was passed a number of years ago, I think they had it down that this specific hospital…. If a specific hospital was the one that in fact incurred the cost, the costs recovered by the NHS in that system would be given over to that specific hospital.

One of the things we're going to be looking at in committee stage of this bill is to ensure that the costs recovered that the minister has talked about in the press release — $5 million to $10 million a year, I think…. I'm sure the reason that it is so wide is that some years, if major cases come forward, I would expect it may be possible to obtain a big amount of money. Some years, in fact, very little money will be recovered. So I assume that's why the minister is arguing that such a wide cost disparity in terms of this legislation….

I think it's fair to say — and I think the minister would probably agree with this — that if in fact the reason we are seeking these costs is to legitimately reimburse the taxpayer in case of wrongful behaviours out there, the place that those recovered moneys should go is not to general revenue. It might be useful to read into the record the eloquent comments of the Minister of State for Mining, in the tobacco cost recovery case, and others who made the same argument. Once we reach the point where either a settlement or a judgment is made and the moneys come into the Crown, given that it was health care costs that were paid out, it should be the health care budget that is reinstated or that receives the money.

I think one of the things I was going to suggest to the minister that we might be bringing forward — we'll put the amendment down for his perusal in advance — and one of the things he might consider at committee stage is just such an idea — to specifically state in the legislation that if money is in fact recovered, it go to the health care budget and maybe the appropriate health care budget from which the money was paid out.

I think that kind of idea would strengthen the legislation. It strengthens the intent of the government in bringing such legislation forward and would be a useful thing, consistent with what MLAs on both sides have said about other legislation in the past.

With that, hon. Speaker, I'd say that the opposition will be supporting what seems to be a good idea that seems to have come from the bureaucracy in this case, based on what's happened, to bring British Columbia law up to where other jurisdictions are in terms of recovering.

I saw an interesting note — the minister didn't comment on this in his speech — that in fact previous to this, there had been…. This was in some ways, maybe, the case dating back to the 1950s. It has been suggested that the ministry does sometimes get paid in these cases but that that case takes place under a gentleman's agreement between some insurance companies and the Ministry of Health.

I think this is something we can discuss — in the past how much revenue actually has come in under such gentleman's agreements. My colleague from Surrey-Whalley was telling me about just such a case in the past. In fact, in the past we had a situation where the Ministry of Health had sought in many cases to get such compensation and had in some cases received it.

I think the issue is whether the Ministry of Health had any legal basis to make such or whether it was simply a request that had happened over time — that that's what had happened when costs came forward — and that it wasn't much of a club to use in cases where insurance companies or other companies might be reluctant to in fact compensate the Ministry of Health for costs that had been incurred. I think that had been the pattern in the past.

It may well have been why in the past the governments hadn't gone this route, because that practice had been in place. I'd be interested to hear — perhaps at committee stage we can cover it off — what the Minister of Health would have to say about that. I think I would agree that times have changed since the 1950s, since this practice had apparently been in effect, and that the need for the legislation appears to be real, especially if the amount of revenue that the Minister of Health has suggested we may be able to get from such cases is real as well.

Of course, in the case of Medtronic and other cases, as I understand it, those cases are still before the courts. So we would have a claim, but we may not have the money. At least it would give us an opportunity to automatically join such cases, and that strikes me as a good idea.

Whether in fact the province will be initiating such cases, as the legislation gives it the right to do, is an open question. That, it seems to me, would require resources, but I think the idea is a good one. It's consistent with what this Legislature has done in the past, at least in the tobacco damages act. I think it probably extends it a little further, in terms of the costs that can be recovered, than that act. It probably extends it further, as I understand it, than other jurisdictions, which in some cases have limited to the costs of hospitalization the costs that the Crown can recover.

These are some of the issues that we'll get at more appropriately at committee stage. The opposition is generally supportive of this legislation. It seems to us to be a good idea to recover moneys that appropriately should come back to the Ministry of Health, with the caveats that we think that that money should in fact come back to the health care institutions that have incurred the costs in their budgets. Contingent on some of the answers we may receive at committee stage, I'd like to express our support for this and our support for a relatively speedy passage of Bill 22.

B. Ralston: Just to add briefly to what the opposition critic for Health has said, in particular, on the recovery by insurers. There was a practice in the past, according to a prominent Vancouver law firm in their insurance note, that insurers agreed to repay the Ministry of Health for hospital costs incurred by claimants injured as a result of the negligence of their insureds. In theory, it worked that they were supposed to notify the Ministry of Health and find out whether hospital costs were incurred in respect of the claim. They were to be repaid by the tortfeasor's insurer — that is, the person who caused the injury.

In practice, apparently this only occurs occasionally. While the Ministry of Health regularly writes to insurers or their counsel to demand repayment of hospital costs, this agreement is not always honoured. In particular, in cases involving out-of-province insurers, there's no legal basis for the hospital's claim at all. So this would put some legal strength to what was previously regarded as — I think they call it a gentleman's agreement — an unenforceable practice.

However, this note does remark that this legislation is similar to legislation in other Canadian provinces. "Most Canadian provinces have legislated subrogation rights by the provincial Ministry of Health for hospitalization costs arising from personal injury accidents."

This writer goes on to say: "However, Bill 22 goes far beyond the norm to allow for the recovery of all health care costs including but not limited to those resulting from hospitalization."

I think that's something, given that some revisions of the Insurance Act are also before the Legislature. I understand that the process to revise the Insurance Act took some five years. There were many consultations that I'd be interested to hear at committee stage, should we get to that stage of debate of this bill and not be subject to closure, given that there are only 12 legislative sitting days left in the legislative calendar, including today.

When the minister speaks of the potential claim or recovery in the Medtronic case — it's not a case that I'm familiar with in detail — I think that's the reference being made here by counsel. I think they largely act on behalf of insurance companies, and it's not necessarily a bad thing that further recovery would be made from insurance companies. But one wonders, given the very lengthy process that took place for the proposed revisions to the Insurance Act to come before the Legislature, what efforts have been made to at least get the point of view of the insurers.

Of course, this is not necessarily consistent with some of the trumpeted values of deregulation that we heard about in the first term. Maybe it's a good thing that those are laid to rest. What this requires is further paperwork and compliance with an elaborate series of notice provisions that anyone who commences an action in this area in law will have to comply with.

The other comment I want to make is simply to add my voice briefly to that of the opposition Health critic, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, in terms of directing the recovery to the health system or — one might argue perhaps — to the health region from which the claim originated, thereby at least fulfilling the purported and stated objective of the bill, which is to gather funds to finance health care.

Generally speaking, Ministers of Finance and treasury boards are always reluctant to have funds earmarked specifically for expenditure in one area because that limits the flexibility in the long run in creating budgets. But given the likely recoveries under this act and given the present Health budget, it seems unlikely that these recoveries will pose a huge problem in that respect.

I would, like the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, offer broad support, and there will be further questions at committee stage, should we ever get there. If this bill does not proceed by way of closure, I would be anxious to participate in that debate when we get there.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, Minister of Health to conclude debate.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and close debate at second reading. I do thank the opposition Health critic and the member for Surrey-Whalley for their comments. I'll just very briefly respond, given that we will have an opportunity in the committee stage debate, I hope, to canvass these matters further.

As the opposition Health critic pointed out, it is challenging to know exactly what range one should anticipate in terms of legal recoveries in a typical year ahead. I think the issue might be somewhat more predictable than predicting the net return from investment in lottery tickets, but it's still going to vary from year to year depending on the size, number and magnitude of the cases involved. So it will range. But again, predictably, if we are not equipped with these legal tools to enjoy recoveries from these cases, we won't get them. That's fairly predictable.

I am appreciative that the opposition is going to be, or appears to be, supportive of this bill. I appreciate that. In terms of the point around recoveries being devoted to health care, I'm glad to hear the submission of the opposition at committee stage around this point. I'm not the Finance Minister, and I don't know all of the rules that may govern how one must manage recoveries from legal cases, but we'll look forward to hearing the opposition proposal with interest.

One thing we can be certain of is that in British Columbia about 45 percent, or 45 cents, of every dollar that is raised from every source in British Columbia today goes to health care delivery in the province.

We know that by 2013, that will be rising to something akin to about 50 cents of every dollar from every source in the province that will be going to health care. So in either event, we can be confident that that's where many of these dollars will be directed.

A final point. The member for Surrey-Whalley noted that someone who had provided them with a letter on issues pursuant to Bill 22 had indicated something along the lines — and I hope I'm not taking too great liberties with what was said — that where legal recoveries have not been secured in the past, costs have been covered by MSP.

I'm sure that in a formal sense that is true, but when we are talking about MSP, we are talking about the people of British Columbia, not about some anonymous, distant medical services plan. The Medical Services Plan is funded in part through annual premiums from the people of British Columbia and also from additional funds that are annually allocated to Medical Services Plan from the province of British Columbia.

So it is important that to the extent we can, we do get legal recoveries that, in response to wrongdoing, help to offset in some cases the horrendous and long-term costs associated with that wrongdoing.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 22 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22, Health Care Costs Recovery Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I call second reading of Bill 42, Election Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 42, the Election Amendment Act, 2008, now be read a second time.

This bill is a significant updating of the province's Election Act. It modernizes the act by implementing recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer, and it goes further by making some timely and necessary changes in a number of areas, such as election financing, advertising, voter registration and enforcement of the act generally. Together these changes will make the act more fair, more transparent, more democratic and more enforceable.

In March 2006 the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, issued a report with 60 recommendations to update the Election Act. As members may know, the last time the act was significantly modernized was in 1995, when it was basically rewritten entirely, and the CEO was made an independent officer of the Legislature with significant duties and powers within the act.

In his 2006 report the CEO noted that: "Electoral law, like democracy, must adapt and change to reflect the needs of the society it serves." This bill will do just that by covering such areas as the appointment of election officials, changing the nomination periods of candidates, creating grounds for re-counts in electoral districts, creating a substantive definition of election advertising, requiring more clarity in reporting and disclosure rules for parties and candidates, and clarifying the right of renters to display election advertising on their premises.

The bill also enacts a number of other changes for regularly scheduled elections. Political parties and candidates would now be required to observe election expense limits during a 120-day pre-campaign period as well as the 28 days of the campaign period itself. Currently, there are no limits on spending before the campaign period.

Under this bill, political parties would have a maximum of $4.4 million to spend during a campaign and half that amount, $2.2 million, during the pre-campaign period. Candidates would have the maximum of $70,000 for the pre-campaign period and $70,000 for the campaign period. These amounts would be adjusted over time by the CEO according to the changes in the consumer price index.

These are clear dollar figures rather than the calculations currently in the act that are based on amount per voter. These limits do not represent an across-the-board increase for either parties or candidates.

Under the current calculation, parties today would have the spending limits of $4.397 million, so we are essentially leaving that unchanged. The average candidate expense limit in 2005 was around $65,000. Overall, that average is being increased slightly, but some candidates will in fact see their expense limits reduced slightly. Standardizing candidate spending limits will reduce confusion and increase fairness by ensuring that the same limits apply to all candidates in all regions.

These changes to spending limits — in particular the creation of the 120-day pre-campaign period — are a response to the effects of the set-date elections. For those elections, everyone knows when the campaign will begin, and it is important to ensure that the pre-campaign period does not become a spending spree, a free-for-all, to the detriment of parties and candidates that lack significant financial resources.

For by-elections and general elections that occur because of a non-confidence matter in the House, of course, it is not possible to create a pre-campaign period, because the election is not planned.

We are also applying the same principle of spending limits to third parties who wish to advertise during elections. The bill would make them subject to spending limits during the 120-day pre-campaign period and the campaign period itself. These limits are patterned on those put in place by the previous government. However, the limits under this bill are higher — $150,000 overall and $3,000 in any single electoral district.

These limits mirror those contained in the Canada Elections Act. We believe these limits are fair and reasonable and will allow third parties to participate in the electoral process without having a disproportionate influence over election outcomes. Again, an important reason for reintroducing spending limits is the effect that the set election dates have on the nature of political campaigns in British Columbia.

As well, in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Hon. Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache, in upholding third-party campaign spending, wrote: "Without the limits, a few wealthy groups could drown out others in debates on important political issues." We agree with that, and that is why we are setting reasonable limits on what third parties can spend.

Another thing this bill does is make the act clearer and more enforceable. Voter identification requirements are being strengthened to ensure that only those who are entitled to vote may do so. These requirements are modelled on recent changes to the federal law and help to prevent voter fraud while still ensuring voter accessibility.

The bill also doubles all the fines for offences under the act. That includes clear directions to the Chief Electoral Officer regarding enforcement of the act generally. The message is that contravening the act is serious, and this should be understood by all political parties, candidates and voters alike.

The bill also brings back the requirement of the Chief Electoral Officer following the 2009 election to conduct door-to-door enumerations prior to each election. Changes were made in 2003 to give the CEO the discretion to determine the method of conducting an enumeration. At that time, measures were also taken to provide for sharing voters lists between Elections B.C. and Elections Canada. The goal was to create the most complete and accurate voters list possible.

However, it appears now that these measures are not a sufficient substitute for door-to-door enumerations. We recognize that enumerations take time and cost money, and we want to afford voters every opportunity to be registered and eligible to vote.

Another important change in this bill is the prohibition on publishing new opinion polls on voting day. A similar provision exists federally, and we believe it is there for a very good reason. Political advertising is already banned on voting day, and we want to make sure that an election advertisement disguised as an opinion poll is not used to influence voters' behaviour. If such a poll is published on voting day, those affected by it do not have an opportunity to respond or to challenge it. I should note that this prohibition does not apply to publishing opinion polls on voting day that have been previously published.

There are a number of other changes in this bill that will help streamline the administration of the act. To give just one example, we've accepted the CEO's recommendations regarding providing copies of voters lists to candidates in an election. Currently, the candidates are entitled to two paper copies of that list as well as an electronic copy. That results in thousands of pieces of paper being unnecessarily printed, since nearly all the candidates use the electronic copy. This bill will reduce a substantial waste of paper during each election and help to reduce the carbon footprint of conducting elections.

This bill also prohibits financial contributions from federal parties and riding associations to provincial parties. This will ensure that federal tax dollars are not used to fund provincial campaigns. One thing we've heard clearly is that British Columbians want their tax dollars to fund services like health care and education and not political parties.

Finally, I should note that there are a few consequential amendments being made to the Recall and Initiative Act as a result of these changes to the Election Act. One such amendment is in regard to spending limits for initiative vote proponents and opponents. These limits will now be calculated separately from those for parties in the Election Act. The amendment simply inserts the relevant portions of the current Election Act provisions so that there are no substantive changes to the way these limits are calculated.

I believe this bill will result in a stronger, fairer electoral system in British Columbia. I urge all members in the House to support it.

L. Krog: Notwithstanding the urging of the Attorney General, I don't know that the opposition is going to jump up and support the bill. It may come as a great surprise to the Attorney General, I know.

I note with interest that it's the Election Amendment Act. I am glad the Attorney General didn't have the cheek to call it the Election Reform Act in any way, shape or form, because the big grey elephant in the room here today — and indeed the big grey elephant in electoral reform and politics in British Columbia generally — is the fact that this bill does absolutely nothing to talk about real campaign finance reform.

Back in 2005 the Leader of the Opposition introduced Bill M202, the Campaign Finance Reform Act. What that bill called on the government of British Columbia to do is finally ban corporate and union donations to political parties. The province of Manitoba has managed it, and somehow democracy seems to have flourished there over the last few years.

Most sensible British Columbia voters have always been concerned about the power of money in elections. Surely, the old tainted and not always accurate view that the NDP was dominated by the big unions that the Liberal bosses refer to, and the Liberals were dominated by big corporate money…. If that's not true, that's great. But the fact is the public believes it's true, or a goodly portion of them.

The government had an opportunity here in this bill to actually step up to the plate and acknowledge that banning corporate and union donations was the right thing to do. It could get on the cutting edge of campaign finance reform here in British Columbia, get on board with the province of Manitoba, show some leadership and actually, quite remarkably, follow the lead shown by their federal kissing cousins the Liberal Party of Canada, Jean Chrétien's parting gift as Prime Minister.

But they weren't quite prepared to go that far. Maybe that's because they're not the kissing cousins of the federal Liberals. They're more the kissing cousins of the federal Conservatives. I don't know. Whatever the reason, notwithstanding the federal government has done it and notwithstanding Manitoba has done it, one would have thought that the Liberals here provincially could have done the same thing. It wouldn't have taken too much to do.

The Attorney General referred to it as a significant update — that it modernizes the act, that it's timely. Well, what the opposition sees in Bill 42 are some key problems. The first I've outlined to some extent already, and that is the fact that it doesn't ban corporate and union donations to political parties.

Instead, what we have here is a bill that bans third-party advertising for 120 days prior to the election. Greater constitutional legal minds than mine will ever hope to be will no doubt make appropriate arguments in front of courts, probably all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, about what that prohibition actually means and what kind of advertising it covers. Again, that's another serious concern for the opposition.

The other thing of great concern to the opposition is the question of identification to enable people to get on the voters list.

You know, I'm not that old, but I've worked in a few campaigns since 1972 in this province. I must tell you, hon. Speaker, that I haven't seen a lot of people in my experience, nor have I heard much evidence or accusations made about people, trying to get the right to vote in this province when they weren't eligible to do so — people who weren't British Columbia citizens trying to step up to the plate and snatch that democratic right to vote when they didn't in fact enjoy it at law.

The truth is that of anyone — particularly the vulnerable, the poor, the dispossessed, the homeless, those people in particular for whom government quite rightly should play a larger role than for those who enjoy the ownership of private property, secure incomes and a long history in a community — those people at the bottom should indeed have every opportunity to elect the governments that will have such an impact on their lives.

This bill doesn't do that. I don't see anything in this bill that says those who are having difficulty getting registered to vote are going to find it any easier.

It's quite remarkable to the opposition that when the government could have done the right thing instead of following the federal Conservative view of things, they didn't do so. What would have been wrong with limits on corporate and union donations?

I'm not going to suggest for a moment that it might have something to do with the figures that Elections B.C. publishes about donations to political parties. Far be it from me to suggest that because the vast majority of money that supports the Liberal Party of British Columbia comes from corporate donations, that would have any influence whatsoever on the Liberal government's Bill 42. Far be it from me to suggest that the fact that the donations to the New Democratic Party in British Columbia — the vast majority of those both in total numbers and dollar value — come from individuals would have anything to do with this bill.

But I just suspect that out there on the streets of British Columbia in the small towns, in the cafes, the coffee shops and the Legions, maybe those folks actually do think it has something to do with the government's failure to ban corporate and union donations to political parties. The truth is that this government wasn't prepared to step up to the plate and see its gravy train of corporate donations stopped in its tracks. The truth is that they weren't prepared to do the right thing.

The truth is that they weren't prepared to accept something which is not unique or fresh or new in this country anymore. They weren't prepared to acknowledge that voters across this country are staying away from polls in increasing numbers, particularly and most recently in the province of Alberta. They weren't prepared to acknowledge that there's a growing cynicism about the democratic process.

One of the ways to combat that cynicism, particularly with a bill that is entitled the Election Amendment Act, would have been to make the appropriate

amendments to bring us into line with good common sense, to bring us into line with reforms that have been made both federally and in other provinces. That is to take the inference out of politics that big money buys you something. It doesn't matter whether it's big money from Western Forest Products or the mining industry or big money from the B.C. Federation of Labour or the B.C. Teachers or whoever.

You know, there's probably not one of us in this room that hasn't had some amount of corporate, individual or union donations — varying amounts depending on our political stripe, varying amounts depending on where we come from. But there's no question that a lot of voters see politicians, sadly, as tools of the people who pay for their campaigns.

If this bill had limited the funding to individuals, at least voters could make that direct correlation even more easily than they do now. When the voters of British Columbia see hundreds of thousands of dollars come to the Liberal Party through corporate donations from the forest industry and then see the legislation that followed, I'm not surprised they became a little cynical about that relationship. It's not surprising at all.

I would have thought that this government, solidly ensconced — seven years into its term now and riding high in the polls — actually could have taken a leadership position, stepped up to the plate and said: "You know what? We're a year away from an election, and we're going to do the right thing. We're going to say to the people of British Columbia that the influence of big money, real or perceived, in British Columbia politics is finally coming to an end."

It's been a long time since whiskey bottles bought votes in this country. That got replaced by crasser methods — big powerful campaigns, media advertising, hoopla, paid organizers, all of those things. Along the way, I think we lost something. This government had an opportunity with this bill to do something different, to make a genuine improvement and to engage in true democratic reform. They didn't.

As I say, the Attorney General can call it a significant update if he wants, but the fact is it doesn't do that. It doesn't attack what I see as one of the root causes of political cynicism, and that is how political parties fund themselves — how they get the vote out, if you will; who they hire and how they come to the money that pays for those people; how they pay for that advertising; how they pay for their polling. It comes, I'm afraid, on the other side of this House largely from corporate money.

I'm not suggesting we want a society without corporations. You know, on this side of the House we believe in investment. We believe in job creation. We believe in building a better British Columbia. But we'd just like to think that the right to vote, the power to elect your government, is and should always be about individuals, about citizens, about the people. The people, with great respect, we on this side of the House believe are not necessarily represented when it comes to the big money that pays for modern political campaigns.

We see to the south of us right now literally hundreds of millions of dollars being raised to pay just to get the right to be the candidate for the Democratic or the Republican parties. We know that American politicians spend half their time fundraising instead of attending to the business which they're elected to do, which is to do the people's business.

Now, the government will respond, "Well, look. We've put limits on campaign spending" — $4.4 million during the campaign and $2.2 million before. That leads me to the next point about this bill. The Attorney General referred to the Election Act brought in, in 1995 by then Attorney General Colin Gabelmann. It had a third-party spending limit, but that limit was struck down by the courts.

Having sat on the committee known to everyone in this House as Legs and Regs, I know the long process by which that bill went up and down, up and down, sideways, backwards and forwards and around the circle so many times you got a little dizzy some days trying to come up with a modern Election Act.

But that act applied, with respect to third-party spending limits, to the time of the election campaign. The Election Amendment Act, 2008, that we're debating today talks about the 120 days prior to the election. That is a remarkable difference, and the previous act was struck down.

We know that the federal act, on which this is apparently modelled, was in fact approved by the Supreme Court of Canada. But the Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision, mentioned several key points around the issue of expense limits. What they recognized was that third-party advertising expense limits were in fact a means, as they said, "to preserve electoral fairness and promote confidence in the integrity of the electoral system." But again, those provisions applied during the election campaign.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the main section and related provisions were enacted with the objective of promoting electoral fairness by creating equality of opportunity for participation in political discourse. If one magically decides that 120 days prior to the campaign is appropriate and lawful to prohibit something that might be called electoral advertising, what's wrong with six months? What's wrong with a year? What's wrong with two years?

The right to free speech — the right to criticize, the right to promote one's interests or the interests of a group or a sector of society, the right to lead the charge on any issue — is surely one that is fundamental, absolutely fundamental, to the democratic process. It's messy, and it's nasty sometimes, and it upsets people. It comes close to promoting hate on occasion, I suspect. It creates divisiveness on occasion.

But it is also something for which a great price has been paid throughout history. The price to achieve the right to vote — to elect governments, to hold them responsible, to demand accountability and transparency and openness — is significant. It took a long time to get here — to get to a situation where people could,

The Supreme Court of Canada, in dealing with the decision around third-party advertising, asserted that individuals should have an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process, in the electoral process, and that the power of money might in fact be an obstacle to equal participation but that Parliament could always take steps to address that unfairness. Of course, Parliament eventually did. Corporate union donations — out the window.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that spending limits might be necessary to prevent the most affluent from monopolizing election discourse, depriving their opponents of reasonable opportunity to speak and be heard. But the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that third-party advertising is another form of political expression. In fact, whether it's partisan or issue-based, third-party advertising expands, enriches and motivates the debate, and the debate is what it is all about.

Some may think I'm being a bit cheeky here today, as we know that we've got over 20 bills to supposedly get through in 12 working days. I'm not being cheeky, but that's certainly a consideration.

But to say to British Columbians that for a full 120 days before the election campaign is officially on, third-party advertising is going to be banned is a pretty difficult thing to undertake.

I understand some of the government's motivation here. On a legitimate basis, the government may be saying: "You know, we don't want people unduly influenced prior to the campaign. We want them to come to it open and clear and understanding things." On this side of the House we recognize that of course the budget and the throne speech will all be in political play, if you will, in those 120 days prior to the election campaign.

Hon. Speaker, imagine for a moment, if you will, that the provincial government brings in a budget that cuts the funding to child development centres across the province. The third-party advertising here might well prevent an organization representing child development centres from raising in a campaign that cut to the budgets that impacts their ability to deliver services, whether through advertisements or whatever.

I don't think the government would want to stop people who deliver services to children with special needs. I don't think the government would ever intend that this bill would limit their rights to hold their government to account after the budget is presented. If there is ever a more important aspect of democracy than the people's right to scrutinize the spending of the taxing authority of the provincial government, I'd be hard pressed to think of it here.

Where and how government collects its taxes and spends the taxes on behalf of the people to whom it owes everything is surely absolutely fundamental to our system of government, to democratic discourse and to a democratic society. The prospect of people who are genuinely affected, either positively or negatively, by a budget not being able to comment is something that I think the average British Columbian would say just isn't right.

Does this mean that if the government brought in a throne speech that, for instance, denied the right of workers to collectively organize, which said that the government was going to bring in that kind of legislation…? If this was seen as an election issue or a political issue, which it most surely would be, does that mean the B.C. Federation of Labour, CUPE, the BCTF or the Hospital Employees Union wouldn't be able to engage in a public campaign to oppose that kind of legislation?

If there was legislation brought in that would have the effect of potentially reducing immigration in this province, would not every right-thinking British Columbian want to stand up and have the right to say something? It's a political issue.

If the government decided to raise royalties by 50 percent in the mining industry, are we saying that the mining industry wouldn't be able to engage in a campaign to say to the government: "This is going to put us out of business. This will destroy investment. This will hurt the economy of British Columbia, particularly rural British Columbia"? Is the government prepared to say today that they don't want the mining industry to defend its interests if the government wishes to engage in a significant increase in royalties? That is, quite frankly, a potential interpretation of this legislation.

I think there is every possibility, notwithstanding the Attorney General talking about making the electoral process — what? — more fair and transparent, that it will do anything but. It will have and could have the potential of limiting the vigorous, sometimes vicious, hopefully intelligent and expansive debate that characterizes politics in a modern democratic state.

In Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), which was the Supreme Court of Canada case that had so much to say about limitations to third-party election spending, the majority held that the limits on third-party advertising infringed the right of political expression guaranteed by section 2(b), but that this infringement was reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society as meeting the pressing and most substantial objective of promoting electoral fairness.

That decision was aimed only at the period of the election — not talking about 30 days, 60 days, 90 days and certainly not 120 days prior to the actual election campaign. That is just a big stretch. It's a pretty big stretch for the opposition to accept. Indeed, I think, more importantly, whatever the opposition may say, it's a pretty big stretch for the taxpayers — the voters, the citizens — to accept.

Having been around as long as I have, it is also somewhat amusing to hear from this government that it needs to impose spending limits for the 120 days prior to the election. I recall in 1995 when the Election Act was brought in and the spending limits were brought in — which were very modest, which were imposed only during the campaign period — that there was no one who complained more bitterly than the

then Liberal opposition about this being aimed and directed at their political friends, the business community — an attack. That they were being silenced for crass political reasons so that this horrible socialist government could somehow get re-elected.

It's a bit of a switch now — amazing what the passage of 13 years will do. Here we are now, and they're asking for a limit of 120 days prior to the campaign, not during the campaign, to put spending limits on. You know, $150,000 to someone in this province making 30 grand a year, or the average family income in my constituency of $49,000 a year, that's a lot of money. But $150,000, the limits in the bill, in modern politics….

Well, I won't call it chump change because that would be a bit silly. But if we acknowledge that it's not unreasonable for a political party to spend $70,000 during an election campaign in one constituency, what do you think $150,000 is going to do for you in a campaign where you're campaigning on behalf of the rights of children to receive services or you're campaigning on the necessity of keeping the public school system strong or you're campaigning to ensure that the mining industry remains an important economic driver in the province or if you're campaigning to ensure that the forest industry is protected — 150,000 bucks, not going to go very far.

Yet that's what this act is saying. Now, I've got to admit, it's kind of like a pension plan. You've got to give the government credit. They do acknowledge, of course, that the moneys, in fact, will increase with an inflation factor over time. But it's a pretty significant limit.

The universities of this province — if they saw their funding slashed, they'd be in the same boat. They'd all get together. They see devastation in post-secondary education coming forth — 150,000 bucks, and that's it.

As one of my friends pointed out, and forgive me for reminding the Liberal side of this, the fact is that that actually happened. Mind you, it didn't happen just 120 days prior to the next provincial election, but one would hope that the post-secondary education institutions of this province — and the universities seem to be multiplying hand over fist under this government…. One would have expected and hoped that they would indeed have the right to protect the interests of post-secondary education.

When you talk about money…. In the decision itself, and this is part of the head note:

But this is a pretty striking departure. Indeed, I would suggest that short of some strange dictatorships and one-party states that none of us have ever had to endure living in, this is a dramatic change, a very dramatic change. This does not, I would suggest, follow the inference that one has to draw from the Supreme Court of Canada in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General). This doesn't follow that. This goes far beyond. This takes us down a different path, if you will.

If you believe that big money makes that big a difference, if you believe that it needs to be controlled — because that's what we're talking about…. If you believe you have to control spending in the 120 days prior to the election, then instead of attacking the presumed rights of people to participate in the process through advertising and comment, why don't you — and I come back to a theme — ban corporate and union donations, which have historically been seen as the source of big money in politics? Why not go to that step and then let us have what some may see as a free-for-all but others would see as the democratic process? Let us have that free, open, loud, sometimes obnoxious debate.

Why not do that? Wouldn't that be the better way? Wouldn't that be the more forthright approach, if you're concerned about the power of money to influence the democratic process? That would have been simple; it wouldn't have been complex. It wouldn't have required any monitoring. It wouldn't have required the Chief Electoral Officer to jump in and try and investigate the various complaints that will no doubt be brought forward. It wouldn't require significant auditing and wouldn't require an increase in bureaucracy. It wouldn't require any of those things.

All it would simply mean is that you'd file your list of donations. The Chief Electoral Officer already has to check it through. We'd see that corporation A donated to candidate B. Bingo, you've breached the act. We'd see that union C donated to campaign D. Bingo, you've breached the act. It's very simple. It's so alarmingly simple that one is left to question: why didn't the government do it?

L. Krog: Ah, my friend mentioned bingo across the way, and I must tell you: he's probably been in politics long enough to remember that it was this government that cancelled the inquiry into that whole mess — for fear, I suspect, that it might have revealed part of Social Credit's long history in the bingo business in this province.

L. Krog: My friend says: "Did you pay the money back yet?" We certainly did. I find it amusing, coming from the other side, who paid back their corporate friends so well with legislation following the 2001 election, whether it be in the giveaways in the forest industry, the elimination of the Forest Practices Code or the fish farming industry, who have got so much support and friendship from this government. I find it remarkable that they'd want to go down that path today.

But I don't want to divert from the main topic at hand today, which is the Election Amendment Act, 2008. I don't want to deviate from that. I don't wish to be ruled out of order on something that is so absolutely and fundamentally important. This is important.

When the history of 2008 is written, what people will look back and say is that this government missed its opportunity. It missed its incredible opportunity to do the right thing. Instead, it came up with this unusual scheme of questionable constitutionality that, for many in the community, simply looks like a hypocritical government attempting to kill free speech.

You know, I belong to a political party that you could say has been in the minority in this province in terms of vote its whole political life. We've never gone over 50 percent of the vote. We in the New Democratic Party understand what it is to have the majority, if you will, against you. We understand that. But I would rather be with the progressive majority any day — and, indeed, I have been my whole life and intend to be for the rest of my life — than to be with the majority that owes its loyalty to those who have already done well in society, those with power and influence.

Instead of stepping up to the plate, as I say, this time around and banning the donations from those powerful interests…. Lord knows, the government side thinks the unions in this province are powerful, and we all know that the corporations are powerful in this province. Instead of stepping aside from that and banning the donations from both of those sources, they bring us this act that now attempts to limit the spending of anybody for 120 days prior to the election — anybody, whether they be corporations or unions or special interest groups.

There's a cute phrase. It always struck me that even the parent advisory council is a special interest group, arguably, looking out for the special interests of the students in the school that it represents. It's been a term that's been much abused.

But in our process, what we have to understand is that in order to represent, sometimes — if you don't have the strength yourself, if you don't have the organization and the money — you rely on others to do so. Often those others are groups who share a common interest, because you individually don't have the energy or the money or the power to do something about it. They may be groups. They may be ten citizens who simply stand on a bridge, as literally thousands of British Columbians did this Saturday past with signs that simply said: "Stand for housing" — thousands of British Columbians.

Now, I wonder if those British Columbians would find themselves in the middle of that period prior to an election campaign being in breach of the Election Act for standing up for the needs of those, the poorest amongst us, who have no place to live. The people who stood up on Saturday across this province…. They included New Democrats. They included Liberals, I'm sure. They certainly included some old Conservatives. They included people who represent and care about those in our society who have little or no voice.

Why do we know they have little or no voice? Because if they did, we wouldn't have the homeless problem that we do. We wouldn't be arguing about it. There wouldn't be a need to stand up and do it. But when they stand up and do that, is that activity to be made illegal now?

If in the spring budget of 2009 there's not a nickel more for housing, there's not a nickel more for assisted living, will the people who stood up with me on Saturday in Nanaimo be subject to some kind of prosecution under the Election Act because it's a political issue, because it involves a political issue, because it involves something important? I don't know. I haven't heard the Attorney General answer that question yet. I'm sure the Attorney General will during the course of committee stage of this bill, but that's a fear.

I guess the point I'm trying to make through the examples I'm bringing here today is that you never know how a court is going to interpret something until the court does. You can look at the precedents. You can consider the precedents. You can have respect for the fact that the Legislature, within its jurisdiction, is supreme, subject to the constitution, the Bill of Rights, and you can take a good guess.

That in and of itself gives me some concern. If the government feels comfortable enough to bring forward this bill with these kinds of limits, it tells me that maybe they've figured out that this might pass muster. Maybe Saturday's political activities in Nanaimo might, in fact, become illegal. Maybe the BCTF, when it stands up for public education, could be charged under the Election Act. Maybe the CEO of the major mining companies of the province might find themselves in a similar boat.

Now, there would be an interesting pickle — the concept of the head of the BCTF, the head of the mining association and the head of the forest council all sitting in the same jail cell paying the same fine for exercising their democratic rights. Now, I'm being a bit facetious, but I'm being facetious for a point. This is why you don't place limits on democratic rights. You don't try to place limits on democratic rights, because you can never envision all of the situations to which those restrictions may apply.

You know, there's not one of us right-minded people in this Legislature who, I suspect, if we'd been around at the time of the Japanese internment, if we'd had any courage, wouldn't have stood up and protested. Yet the majority in society at that time arguably supported that legislation, obviously, and did support the internment of their fellow citizens.

That's the power of the majority, and that's why the right to protest, to exercise your franchise, to criticize, is so utterly important and so crucial. It is to ensure just that — that no one, if you will, gets away with anything in our society without those of us who want to protest it having the right to do so without fear of fine or imprisonment or restriction. That is the essence of being part of a democratic society.

When this bill talks about those limits, we face the very risk of harming what it has taken so long to

achieve in this province. I mean, the Attorney General noted it himself, and I have no need to go at length through the history of democratic reform in this Legislature. The Attorney General noted in his remarks to this bill that in 1995, when the Election Act was introduced, it made the Chief Electoral Officer an independent officer of the Legislature. That's not within my grandparents' lifetime or my mother's lifetime or my father's lifetime. It's within my lifetime — my active political lifetime — that we finally did the right thing and recognized that the conduction of elections to be seen as fair, open, transparent, honest and untainted were best conducted and handled through an independent officer of the Legislature.

It wasn't that long ago — again, within the lifetimes of all the members present in this chamber today — that we finally achieved a Hansard in this province, that we got a question period. Notwithstanding that those democratic reforms had existed in other parts of the British Commonwealth for a very long time, it took us a long time to get here.

As much as I get disturbed by the kind of advertising, if you will, that I've seen aimed at my political party during election campaigns or around the time of election campaigns, as much as it's painful and I don't regard it as accurate or fair, I guess what we're saying on this side of the House, and what I'm saying for myself, is that we are prepared to take the heat, because we understand taking the heat of that process is, firstly, necessary; secondly, you could argue, character-building; and thirdly, fundamental to ensure a system where free and open and uninhibited debate is the hallmark of what we do.

It is not some side issue, some by-product, some inconsequential part of it. It is absolutely fundamental to the democratic process.

I can't imagine that the government would wish to place the Chief Electoral Officer in the horrible position of having to determine and be a participant in a process whereby people and organizations could be prosecuted or fined for expressing themselves. Because that's what we're talking about. We are talking about limits on the right to express yourself on political issues.

Sometimes in this chamber I worry, as I'm sure all members do, about going over the top. But the right to protest what governments do is so absolutely central to our society. I could quote Pastor Niemöller.

Everybody's heard that. They all understand what that means. We know how it finishes. "When they came for me, there was no one left to protest."

If we don't protest this legislation in this House today, it's not going to mean the end of democracy in British Columbia, but I would suggest that it is a step down the road.

I note one of our fellow members wishes to make an introduction. I'd cede the floor for a moment to him, if I may.

D. MacKay: Thank you to the member for Nanaimo for allowing me to interrupt his debate time here.

D. MacKay: I've had the privilege of showing 30 students from grades 4 and 7 throughout the building. They're in the chamber right now, looking over from the gallery at the proceedings in this House. The 30 students are from the community of Dease Lake, which is up in the north central part of British Columbia. They're here with their teachers Amanda Bartle and Jennifer Manuel and eight parents who joined them during their trip to Victoria. I would ask the chamber to please make those people very welcome.

L. Krog: I'm delighted that a group of young people have come so far to witness democracy in action. Notwithstanding what the members opposite may cheekily suggest, I'll try not to bore them with my remarks.

Back to the Election Amendment Act. Whenever you try and place limits on open discussion and debate…. Whenever you try and do that, it almost invariably fails, and any mischief that that restriction is hoping to correct or relieve is in fact enhanced and expanded.

I think many members in this chamber have probably been following the controversy in Maclean's around the remarks of one of its writers and his ongoing war with the Human Rights Commission. Saying things that might promote hate, that are controversial, that are absolutely the opposite view of what I may hold or what members in this House may hold or what the majority of Canadians may hold isn't pleasant. No one wants to hear it.

No one appreciates someone coming up to their door, knocking on it and saying: "You know what? I think you're an idiot, and I disagree with you. I think your views are abhorrent." Nobody wants to hear that. But the last thing I would ever want to do is consider placing an unnecessary restriction on somebody's right to do that. What this act potentially has the ability to do is just that — to place restrictions, as I said, not for 30 days or 60 days or even 90 days but for a full 120 days, for four months prior to an election. And this, as I've said earlier, all at the very time when the government has announced its agenda and when it has put forth its budget.

It's bad enough to consider the concept at any time, but to have that concept introduced into our particular situation in British Columbia is even more concerning, because we're working on a fixed election date. Frankly, I kind of like the idea of a fixed election date. I think the majority of British Columbians like the concept that the government can't just run out and ask for a reaffirmation of its mandate when it suits it. I think a lot of British Columbians appreciate that reform.

But in our system that election date is the second Tuesday in May, and the 120 days takes into account the possibility that the government can bring in a full legislative agenda. Yet the only people who'll be able to talk about it, with great respect, will be the most elite of the province, and that's us or the candidates who will be running in the ridings for the various political parties.

They're the only people who'll be able to raise their voices. They're the only people who'll be able to stand up and say: "This is wrong. This is stupid. This is an infringement. This is backward, or even forward, for that matter." The only people who'll be able to do that will be politicians.

Now, if it's during the campaign — you know what? — one month out of 48 is not a bad idea. We can all understand limits on expenditure and influencing voters during the time when they are most focused on choosing their democratic representatives. But the 120 days prior, during the time when we'll be talking about the most fundamental aspect of government — the collection of taxes, if you will, and the spending of the moneys?

I think the Supreme Court of Canada might well have something to say about that. I would think a court with proper argument in front of it might well have something to say about that. I think it's pretty clear that there are a lot of political commentators in this province already who've had a lot to say about it, that they smell something here that just isn't quite right.

What the opposition is saying is that we need to look at this very, very carefully. We need to consider this. If I thought that some great mischief had been achieved in the last election campaign by third-party advertising, I might be somewhat sympathetic, because as I pointed out earlier, generally speaking, the big money is against us on this side of the House, not against the party in power.

We're the opposition. Generally speaking, we're on the receiving end, and you don't see us crying. You don't see us asking for a 120-day shield. You don't see us begging to be protected from those who would criticize us for 120 days prior to the election.

It's the government. It's the government that has the public affairs bureau. It's the government that has access to all that government advertising. It's the people in power who are saying: "Oh, protect us. We don't want any third-party advertising. We don't want any criticism. We don't want any opposition."

Now, there's an interesting concept: opposition. That's kind of the other fundamental aspect of our democratic process. You've got folks in power, and you've got folks who oppose them. We're referred to as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Our job is to oppose.

As much as it's our job to oppose, I'm not aware of anything in hundreds of years of constitutional history that says we're the only people who get that privilege. It is a right enjoyed by every citizen and group — the right to oppose, to criticize, to attack, to challenge, to question, to open up for debate. That is absolutely fundamental.

What the government here is suggesting is that it's an appropriate infringement on rights to do something about that — that for 120 days prior to an election campaign the only people who get to talk are the elected candidates, the chosen candidates of the political parties. Doesn't the government like a challenge? Don't they like a little fun?

Does the prospect of the hurly-burly of the campaign, the rough and tumble of a fight…? Do the high language and exaggerations, if you will, that go with political campaigns trouble them? Does that scare them? Does the hyperbole of the campaign trail strike fear into the hearts of the government?

We're ready to take it. We're up to the challenge on this side of the House. We're ready to go. But it appears that the government is not. If I had seen some incredible public desire — if I'd had letters in my constituency office or phone calls or e-mails begging us to bring in spending limits for the 120 days prior to the election — I might be making a different speech. I might have been persuaded by that.

But the government is willing to jump in and do it for this, and yet I'm sure they have received as many letters and e-mails and telephone calls as I have about the issue of housing in British Columbia, and I don't see them stepping up to the plate on that issue. I don't see them bringing in a piece of legislation that….

Well, we've had the Medicare Protection Act — "the sustainability act" or whatever — in this House.

I haven't seen an act that guarantees the right of British Columbians to safe, secure and affordable housing. I haven't seen the right that protects ordinary British Columbians.

What is it by the great Anatole France, the great French philosopher? "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to beg in the streets, to steal bread and to sleep under bridges." On this side of the House we're saying that the law, in its majestic equality, isn't protecting the people who sleep under the bridges or steal bread or beg in the streets right now.

So if the government's got political energy, perhaps they should devote that energy to solving that problem, if you will. When I use the term "problem," it makes it sound like something amorphous. These are people. These are our fellow citizens.

Instead of being able to engage in a rough-and-tumble, vigorous debate for the 120 days prior to the election campaign, the very people who advocate on behalf of the poorest of the poor, the people who do sleep under our bridges — and sleep under bridges in increasing numbers in the province of British Columbia…. Anyone who engages in an organized campaign will find themselves subject to prosecution?

Now, I mean no criticism of any religious faith when I say this, but Christ was a radical. Christ stood and fought for the poor and the weak. The churches in this province today — the temples, the synagogues, the

people who engage regularly in religious practice in this province — are all saying the same thing: "We can't let our fellow citizens live in the streets. This is wrong."

What I fear this legislation says is that if those very groups that I've just talked about — and they are just part of a whole coalition of British Columbians who are embarrassed and ashamed, who want to do something…. All of those people could be subject to prosecution for taking up the cause of justice for the poorest and the weakest, for the mentally ill, for the addicted, for the abused children. And they are children, teenagers, who are selling their bodies on the streets of British Columbia. If you take up their cause in that 120-day window, you could arguably be subject to prosecution.

Now, some members may suggest the member for Nanaimo is exaggerating. I don't think I am. This is a dramatic change from the existing law. The concept of free speech, the concept of the right to expression in our society, is not some narrow or defined right. It is broad and expansive, and it encompasses things we don't want to hear, as well as things we do want to hear. That's the nature of it. That is the very nature and essence of it.

When this legislation attempts to restrict that, everyone in this House who cares about the very process that enabled us to enjoy the right and privilege to serve here, everyone who cares about that process, is duty bound to stand in this House to question, to criticize and to enjoy the protection that we enjoy in this House — to enjoy the very freedom to express those views.

We in the opposition are saying to the government: "Should that protection not be afforded and extended to all British Columbians, to those who wish to take to the streets, to those who wish to raise money to run an advertising campaign to raise awareness around an issue?"

You know, on the weekend I went down to the Walk for Hope. It's to raise money for a hospice. Prior to that, there was the Bell Walk for children so that there'll be a help line that kids can phone if they're feeling stressed or their parents' marriages are falling apart or they're not doing well at school or they've being bullied — some place for them to phone.

Those are all good causes. Those are organizations that should have our support. Why should those who are terminally ill not be able to die with some dignity and comfort, with someone there to see them to the other side? That's a good thing. Why shouldn't children who are perhaps being abused not have an ability to reach out and seek help, to request assistance, to ask for some comfort? Those are good things.

Yet, if you put those requests in something that remotely resembles a political campaign or political context, potentially under this bill you'll be subject to sanction because you'll have, you know, interfered with the democratic process. You'll have placed in jeopardy a fair outcome for the election. You'll have threatened democracy, if you will.

Well, I'd like to think that the democratic process is a little bit more resilient than that, and that — you know what? — it's okay. I'll take the heat from the mining industry or the forest companies, and surely the government can take the heat from the BCTF or people who represent social agencies trying to do good works around the province. Can't we all handle a little heat?

I mean, Harry Truman famously said — and maybe Harry Truman stole it from somebody: "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." Well, politics is the kitchen, and it gets hot.

L. Krog: Overly sensitive, my friend says. If everyone in this chamber had a buck for every time they've been insulted, we'd all be multi-millionaires. If every time we took a bit of heat from our constituents and got a buck for that, we'd all be multi-millionaires.

But that's part of the process, because you understand that in order to make change, to make progress, to make things happen, you have to take criticism. What this bill does is essentially restrict that criticism. I question, I seriously question, how that can be a good thing, how that can enhance the democratic process.

But you know, it's not just the fact that the government is not banning corporate and union donations, doing the most obvious of things. I've talked about that. With great respect, hon. Speaker, and no insult to the government, that was a no-brainer. That was the simple part. That could have been part of this bill.

It's not just the third-party limits. It is about ensuring that the people I've talked about — the people who do sleep under the bridges and in doorways, who have no fixed address, who literally often have nothing more than the rags on their backs and the shoes on their feet — the very people for whom government is so important…. Those people will, the opposition suggests, have even greater difficulty exercising their democratic franchise because they may not be able to get registered to vote.

You know, it makes me think of the concept of the deserving and the undeserving poor. I mean, those horrible thoughts, if you will, that kind of view of the world, still permeates modern thinking. I hear it from some of my constituents. You know what? They're not interested in helping the drug dealers. One understands that, but they don't want to help the drug dealers' victims either. They see alcoholics and addicts as somehow being responsible for their own fate.

You know what? We've all got a certain amount of free will in society, but if you grow up in a home where you were abused, if you grow up in a home where you're the child of an addict, if you grow up in a home where there was no love, where your parents were engaged in their own selfish activities, whatever that might be, even if they were good parents sometimes….

Some things put kids over the edge. They end up crack addicts. They end up without a residence. They end up without the kind of support system that many of us enjoyed when we were growing up. Are those people to be disenfranchised? Some of my constituents might say yes. The majority certainly don't.

Those people need the opportunity to vote. They need to feel and believe that they can make a difference — that it isn't just those of us who have weathered the rigours of life better than others, who have a fixed address, who have a residence. Surely, the right to elect governments shouldn't be restricted to us who have been lucky or blessed or graced.

Surely, the least amongst us in material wealth or in mental ability, the least amongst us who suffer from addictions or mental illness or both or deprivation or who are abused are the very people that we should be ensuring have the ability to register and to vote and to elect governments. Surely, that's what we should be doing.

We know that when the feds brought in their changes, there was a challenge to the ID rules.

There was a time in this country when people literally lived in the woods and no place else. They lived off the land. They didn't have a fixed address. They moved from place to place, itinerant, worked in mines, worked in the forests — hunted, fished, whatever. When the time came, they were called, went off and fought in two great wars and in the Korean War.

You know, no trouble if they didn't have a fixed address. They were eligible to join up and fight for the country. Yet we're making it difficult for people who, sometimes through their fault, sometimes through no fault of their own and sometimes as a result of a combination of all of that, don't meet the very formal requirements to be able to register to vote. Are we going to deny them the right to vote?

I said earlier that I've worked in a lot of campaigns. I've scrutineered. I've knocked on doors. I've been a candidate. I've done it all, as they say, and I come back to it: is there some great mischief in this province around voter fraud that I have missed?

Are there hundreds or thousands of British Columbians who are voting who shouldn't vote, who are citizens of Alberta or Washington State or Louisiana or Ontario and aren't residents here? Are they lining up to vote and stuff the ballot boxes for my party or the governing party or the Reform Party or the Conservatives or the Green Party or the Marijuana Party?

If there is literature and studies around that indicate that that is, in fact, the case, then I'd like to hear about it. I'd like to know that this proposed change is necessary, that there is some mischief to be corrected, that we will be fairer, that the results of elections will be more honest, if you will. But I don't think that's the case. I just don't think that's the case.

In the old voting system, I would argue, it may well — under section 41 as it exists now — be easier to get people registered to vote. Why wouldn't you want them to vote? I realize that it's not the law — as it is, I believe, in Australia, or certainly used to be — that you have to vote.

But I personally — and not speaking for my party, lest anyone be listening to my remarks today…. There's a little tiny part of me that's always kind of leaned towards that model. If you wanted to prosecute somebody around an election, prosecute them for not voting. In the 2000 campaign, and I've mentioned this in this House before, I remember this wonderful poster put out by Elections Canada. It's just a picture of Nelson Mandela. The caption beside it said: "This man spent 27 years in prison for the right to vote. What's your excuse?"

The right to vote is fundamental, and we are a better society when more of us vote, when we participate. It's not just because the legislatures or parliaments or councils or school trustees that we elect will represent a more diverse group, if you will. It is because it develops a sense of community and inclusion, a sense of self-esteem, to know that you've participated, that you're part of something bigger, that you're not just a citizen, but you're a participating citizen. You're doing something to build your community by choosing its leadership.

I'm touched every year by the prayer breakfast. There was one just last week. The thought that there were people who were praying for the leadership of the province…. I've got to tell you, it's a kind of moving and emotional thing. I'm not necessarily convinced the Bible requires us to be prayed for, but the concept that people pray that we do good work here, to assist us in doing good work is a wonderful thing. It gives one a sense of community, and it encourages us to value what we do here — the honour and the privilege it is to serve in positions of leadership, whether you're in the opposition or the government back bench or you're in cabinet or you're the Premier of the province. What we do here is important.

Anything, to me, that would restrict or in some way inhibit the ability of British Columbians who live in British Columbia and who, for whatever reason, find themselves homeless or without a fixed address or without a circle of friends or family to support them…. Anything that would inhibit their ability to vote, I would suggest, is repugnant. It's repugnant to me. It should be repugnant to every British Columbian. We should be doing everything we can to encourage people to vote.

I'll compliment the Attorney General. I'm delighted to see the call in this bill for a door-to-door enumeration. That is a positive step, and the Attorney General needs to be complimented for that.

L. Krog: My friend over on my left is presupposing where I'm going with my remarks. He's to be complimented for that. His question is — and it's my question: have you got a door?

For those of us who had the good fortune to be born in this country and who have gotten past the milestone of 50, we remember a Canada and a British Columbia where you didn't have the numbers of people living in the streets, where the term "couch-surfing" — language that some of my son's younger friends explained to me some years ago, what it means — didn't exist.

I would argue that notwithstanding the progress we've made in many areas, we were a better country and a better province then. The concept that so many of our fellow British Columbians, our fellow Canadians would live in the streets and have no fixed address, have no home is just something that we wouldn't have understood. It was inconsistent with everything we felt and believed about this country and about this province.

We thought of that as somehow the problems of other worlds, of other nations. That was something my brother, when he was a young kid, literally — a teenager in the navy — saw in Rangoon, in Bangkok. He saw that kind of homelessness. Kids, no family, living on the streets — that was something reserved for another world. We didn't see that in British Columbia. Oh, we had skid row. We all understood that. Those of us who grew up in logging families understood what that was all about. There were a few, but nothing like the numbers we see today.

Are we to say to those, the least wealthy amongst us, those in the greatest need…? Are they to be forgotten and left out of the process? Are they not able to exercise the same rights, or do they not have the same rights as the rest of us to elect our governments, to vote? Are they somehow lesser than any of us? I don't believe so. I don't think the Attorney General does either.

The research department on my side of the House — which the government often jokes about during question period and makes little funny quips about — my read of this bill, the comments of many others who have read this bill and the intelligence of my colleagues on this side of the House tell me that, in fact, this bill is going to do just that. There is no mischief to be corrected. There is no significant problem around voter fraud in this province.

I've sat through too many elections. This is not Zimbabwe. The Premier, notwithstanding what I may feel about his policies, in no way resembles a Robert Mugabe. If we're not facing a problem, if it ain't bust, why are we trying to fix it?

I would submit that what we are doing here is trying to ensure the honesty and credibility of a process that, in essence, most British Columbians accept and believe is right and fair. There aren't hundreds and thousands of voters sneaking into election booths around the province, cheating. It's not happening. There's no evidence of it. Why would we do anything that, I submit, not only may but will have the effect of disenfranchising British Columbians?

It may not be the homeless we're talking about. It's the guy who has been working in camp who doesn't care much about politics and who finally paid attention on the last day of the campaign. He's out of camp, and he comes into town, realizes he's not on the voters list and tries to get on. I'll exaggerate a little bit. Maybe he left his wallet on the plane as he flew in — whatever. Why would we want to make it difficult for someone to vote? Why would we want to do that?

Surely it's more important to have as many British Columbians as possible vote. We should be expanding and ensuring that the system is as easily accessible as is reasonably possible.

Do you know what, hon. Speaker? If the government made it simpler to vote and easier to register and a problem arose…. I'm a big guy. I'd stand up here after the next election. I'd say, "You know what, Mr. Attorney General? I was wrong. We had serious voter fraud problems. Here's the evidence. Here's the report of the Chief Electoral Officer. Something went wrong. We didn't do it right. You followed my advice. I was wrong. I'm sorry. Let's fix it."

I come back to my point. Nobody was clamouring, that I am aware of, to make it more difficult to vote — nobody. Those aren't the issues that are driving people into my office. Those aren't the issues, I'm sure, that are the subject of e-mails to the Premier, letters to the cabinet ministers, the subject of public rallies. I don't see anybody out there asking for this.

Now, I'm not suggesting, just because nobody is asking for it, that it may not be a problem. My point earlier was that sometimes there are voices in this province that are not heard. It's our duty to represent the voiceless, each and every one of us, and it may be the duty of organizations trying to help the voiceless to represent the voiceless and speak. Let's not confuse the issue here, but I haven't heard anybody say that this was a problem. So why would we want to do anything other than go the other way, to ensure that people do get the right to vote? That is surely the better way.

Hon. Speaker, courts read legislation. When you bring in legislation, courts look at it. They look at every word. Decisions are based on one definition sometimes, and when government makes a change, it's presumed that the Legislature intended a change. So when we make a change to section 41, the courts are going to have to interpret that to mean that we intended a change. The result, I would submit, will be a restriction on the potential of people to register to vote. That cannot be, nor will it ever be, a good thing.

This bill, I would suggest, with the greatest respect to the government, makes some improvements, as I've said. I'm glad to see enumeration. It's a step. It's better than not having one. There are some minor changes which are positive.

But to sum up, the failure to eliminate corporate and union donations, the potential mischief in the creation of a new class of criminals, if you will, as a result of the restriction on third-party advertising and the limiting effects on people to register to vote mean that this opposition has to fulfil its obligation to criticize, to protest and to oppose. Surely that right should be protected and enhanced in British Columbia, not restricted, not limited, not eliminated in a 120-day period prior to a provincial election.

I know that the government agenda is full. We know that they've tabled their last bill. We understand that, and we've got a lot of debating to do, in a little over 11 days. We've got estimates to go through, and the rumour is that we're not going to have a fall session.

My suggestion would be to the government that they ease their burden — because it is their burden; it's their legislative agenda — and withdraw the most repugnant sections of this bill. Leave in the good. Save the wheat; get rid of the chaff. Do the right thing.

We already know that this session the government has followed the lead of the opposition. The legislation around reservists, the "no smoking in cars" act…. They've adopted a number of good things from the opposition.

I promise the Attorney General here in this House, on Hansard: do the right thing around this bill, withdraw the stuff that is repugnant, and I'll compliment him. He can quote me in his election brochure next spring.

L. Krog: My friend suggests it may not be enough. I suspect that my friend the member for Surrey-Whalley may in fact be right when he says that. It may not be enough, but I'm prepared to do it in the spirit of doing the right thing for British Columbia, in the spirit of doing the right thing for the voters of British Columbia and in the spirit of doing the right thing for the integrity of the political process.

I'd be happy to compliment the Attorney General if he does the right thing and withdraws the section that this opposition cannot support — withdraws the sections which, I submit, will fail a constitutional challenge. I want the government to save itself from the political embarrassment that will flow from that. I'm giving them that opportunity.

I'm giving them the opportunity to save themselves from the embarrassment. I'm giving them the opportunity to stand up and crow like W.A.C. Bennett used to. They took the famous second look, stepped back and did the right thing.

We're giving them that opportunity. I'm well aware that this government in particular has not availed itself of those opportunities that members of the opposition have offered so frequently in the last seven years. But this is one chance they could do it, particularly, as I say, when they have so much to do — when all of us have so much to do — in the next 11 days. Let them do the right thing.

B. Ralston: It's a pleasure to follow the member for Nanaimo. I would just add parenthetically at the outset of my speech that the Attorney General did in fact pull a piece of legislation — the Inquiries Act. It was objected to widely. There was widespread public criticism. Notwithstanding that he had presumably scrutinized that bill, shepherded it through cabinet and introduced it into the Legislature, it was pulled, did not proceed further and came back later in a revised form. So there is some precedent for undertaking the steps that are proposed by my colleague the member for Nanaimo.

I would commend the Attorney General to that point of view as he reflects upon the remarks that the member for Nanaimo has just made. But to begin, most of this bill really incorporates recommendations by the Chief Electoral Officer, who is an independent officer of the Legislature. Most of it is routine. Most of it seeks to improve the legislation.

However, this opportunity to reform the Election Act and campaign finance presented a golden opportunity which the Attorney General has not taken. That is the opportunity to do what the federal Liberal government did under the leadership of Prime Minister Chrétien and ban, for electoral purposes, any donations from unions or from companies so that only individuals be entitled to contribute to the electoral campaigns or to political parties, whether during the campaign period or during the course of the year.

In fact, there's also an element of public financing that was introduced by the federal Liberal government so that parties are put on a more even footing. Depending on the proportion of the vote they receive and the number of votes they receive in the preceding election, there's also a formula that flows to the party a certain amount of public financing.

That was the bold step taken by the federal Liberal government under Prime Minister Chrétien. Unfortunately, this debate doesn't appear to have entered into any of the considerations that this government is embarking upon here in this bill.

In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, back in 2005, proposed just those revisions to the Election Act — those kinds of campaign reform initiatives. The government has had ample time to reflect upon that. It's part of the public debate here in British Columbia, and that opportunity has been missed to set aside the perception by the public that big money would influence an electoral result. Whether that's wrong or whether that's real, that's certainly a widespread public perception. That's something that the federal Liberal government did and something that the Leader of the Opposition has proposed here.

This legislation shows that the government has simply not taken and seized that opportunity. So that is really the missed opportunity here. The Attorney General has confined himself to a series of — with a few exceptions, which I'll deal with — very pedestrian amendments to the Election Act.

In fact, one of the minor amendments that this act brings about is that it will entitle people to donate money to the political party of their choice over the Internet by using a credit card, without the necessity of providing a signature. To some extent, electoral donations were confined, or there is a bureaucratic hurdle that was required. When one gave by credit card electronically, the party receiving the funds was required to solicit a signature from the person giving the money. That requirement has been removed.

What we've seen, certainly in the United States in the presidential campaigns, the very heated presidential campaigns between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton and the Republican nominees, is that the amount of donations, the dollar value of donations of under a

hundred dollars — small amounts of money — by members of the public has simply soared. It has widened the base of political participation. It has enabled people to participate in American politics in a way that would be very healthy for democracy here in British Columbia.

In fact, if you look at the recent election returns on the federal scene, the federal Conservative Party, which was not in support of some of the changes that were proposed by the federal Liberals in terms of campaign financing, has done very well indeed. It has developed a wide base of donations, of individual donations, and its ability to raise money has not been hampered at all.

Certainly, that's the prospect, and that's the direction that campaign financing is moving in the United States, without the additional element of public financing at the federal level. Yet here at the provincial level, the Attorney General has failed to seize the opportunity and bring about real reform in the way in which political parties and election campaigns are funded here. So that is a significant disappointment.

The Leader of the Opposition set out a private member's bill in 2005 before this very Legislature. The amendments are relatively straightforward, and we could be debating that now. The Attorney General has, regrettably, chosen not to do that.

What this bill does, though, is bring about a couple of changes which I think are ill-conceived. I really wonder whether the Attorney General has had the benefit of the kind of advice that would seem to be necessary in evaluating some of the amendments that are proposed here, because of course the Attorney General has a dual role. It's a well-recognized constitutional role, a dual role.

He's at once a political member of cabinet and participates in that, but he has a separate and distinct role which obliges him to stand back from his colleagues in a non-partisan way and assume the role of the chief law enforcement officer, the principal lawyer on behalf of the government. In some situations that can be a very difficult and challenging job, certainly where there are prospective investigations of fellow cabinet members — police investigations, for example, to use a most extreme case.

There is that recognized constitutional role. In bringing this piece of legislation forward before the Legislature, the Attorney General needs to look to that second role here because these issues — in particular, the changes to third-party spending — are in my view ill-conceived and may not — one can't be certain, of course — pass legal scrutiny by the courts.

Why do I say that? I think the government's problem, if I can put it that way, or the motivation for some of this has come about as a result of the fixed election date. Now, the fixed election date is a reform that is widely supported. I support it. The members on this side support it. But it has certain obvious consequences when the date of the campaign is set. I think this legislation, in respect of third-party spending, attempts to address that, but it does it in a very ham-handed way and in a way that will ultimately be rejected by the courts, although one cannot be sure of that.

It's ironic, indeed, that we hear from the members on that side of the House about a restriction on spending by third-party interests. On Tuesday, July 4, 1995, back when he was in opposition speaking about legislation put forward by the then government, the NDP, the member for Point Grey — the now Premier — said, and I'm quoting from Hansard: "We, like many others, believe that the provisions for a gag order on third-party interests are simply wrong."

Quoting from him further: "It is outside citizens — citizens outside the traditional political process — who have sounded those messages loudest and brought them forward for the public agenda. The fact of the matter is that a $2,000 limit is simply inexcusable. It is simply unconstitutional, and it should not be there. It clearly should not be there as a way of restricting full expression within the Election Act."

Of course, that was the Premier then. Now he's apparently taking a very different view. He called it a gag order on third-party interests, and that term was repeated endlessly. I haven't heard the Attorney General describe his legislation as a gag order, but certainly it imposes restrictions on third-party spending.

This issue was considered at some length in relation to federal legislation. The origin of the case that went before the Supreme Court of Canada was one initiated by then Mr. Harper, back when he was a private citizen, now the Prime Minister of Canada. The case is reported. It's called Harper v. Canada, and it appears in the Supreme Court records in 2004 — volume 1, page 827.

One of the things that the court considers in considering whether a limit…. The limit in this particular federal legislation was $3,000 of total spending in a given electoral district and $150,000 nationally. That's for spending by a third party in the course of an election campaign. The significant thing here is that this is during the election period. This is while the campaign is on, from the date the election is called until the election day. So here in British Columbia that's a period of 27 days.

What the Supreme Court was talking about was the equivalent federal legislation that looked at the spending during those 27 days. What's happened here is that the legislation chosen to put forward by the government is that they have talked about a period of 120 days beginning outside at the commencement of the election period or the campaign period, as it's called.

If the election is to be May 12, one would calculate back to early April, and then 120 days back from that would take us to the second week or so of December. So from the second week of December until the second week of April would be that period of 120 days during which limitations on spending by third parties would apply.

The Supreme Court, in upholding limits on third-party spending, did discuss some of the important considerations that go into deciding whether or not a limit on third-party spending is a good thing. They said — and I'm quoting from the judgment of Mr.

Justice Bastarache — that limits on third-party spending can promote equality in political discourse. Quoting from page 67 of the judgment: "An upper limit on the amount that third parties can dedicate to political advertising curtails their ability to dominate the electoral debate. Thus, third-party advertising expense limits are rationally connected to promoting equality in the political discourse."

The next consideration that they had was: did this promote the integrity of the financing regime applicable to candidates and parties?

So those are the considerations that were engaged in. I support that argument. There's an attempt to balance the right of freedom of expression but also to promote the right of equality in the political discourse of the election.

One of the interesting things, which seems to have been totally ignored in the remarks of the Attorney General and in the bill itself, is that…. And this is a significant restriction on what is being talked about here, because the chief justice and another judge said that if groups couldn't spend over the $150,000 nationally and the $3,000 locally, they wouldn't be able to effectively communicate their views on election issues to their fellow citizens.

Then Mr. Justice Bastarache goes on to comment on that view that if you put this limit on during an election campaign, during that election period — and the equivalent here would be the 27 days — communication wouldn't be effective, and it wouldn't be fair.

What he's saying is that the reason he's prepared to uphold limits on third-party spending during an election campaign is that there are no limits outside the election campaign. But this legislation takes a very, very different view, and it's unprecedented, as far as I'm able to tell in the short time that I've been able to look at this bill since it was introduced late last week. It's unprecedented in Canadian law.

One really wonders what thought has gone into the restrictions that this imposes upon third parties. Not only does this cover the 27 days of the election campaign, this covers from December to April, during which time there is traditionally public debate about — not even the budget — the forthcoming budget. The budget is traditionally tabled in February. Much of January and sometimes in December there's public discussion of what should be in the budget.

According to this piece of legislation, arguably, groups who want to advocate for something to be included in the budget…. That might be considered to be third-party advertising, and their ability to do so would be restricted.

The definition in section 59 of what is considered to be election advertising is very, very sweeping. It says it "means the transmission to the public by any means, during the period beginning 120 days before a campaign period" — that's that period from December forward to April — "and ending at the end of the campaign period" — election day — "of an advertising message that promotes or opposes, directly or indirectly…."

So it's not a question of someone from the Mining Association taking out an ad to support or encourage political parties to take a position on exploration or mining of uranium, for example. It's not necessarily direct; it's indirect. That is ambiguous at the very least and quite sweeping in its potential impact. So it "promotes or opposes, directly or indirectly, a registered political party or the election of a candidate" — and this is the significant passage — "including an advertising message that takes a position on an issue with which a registered political party or candidate is associated."

Indirectly associates…. So the ambit of this restriction is very, very sweeping indeed. I challenge the Attorney General to produce the legal opinions that he's received during the course of the preparation of this legislation and table them in the Legislature in order that we might find whether or not there is any significant objection to this, whether there are any cautions that have been provided and why this particular phrasing was chosen. It is very, very sweeping — unprecedented, I would say — for a period from December to election day, during which period prebudget discussion, a Speech from the Throne, a budget, the beginning of a session and presumably political discussion of the government's legislative initiatives by the public….

The restriction that applies is very sweeping and could apply to any group in the way that's described here in section 59. My sense is that this wasn't something that the Chief Electoral Officer recommended. This has the odour, the look, of something that's been tacked on by some political mechanism either at the cabinet table or from the Premier's office. It doesn't look well considered. It looks ill considered. In my view, it's bad legislation.

The Attorney General is not just another member of cabinet. He has an obligation. He has a constitutional duty. Rather than put forward bad legislation that's likely to be challenged in the courts, he has an obligation. If

in his judgment this legislation offends the principles I've spoken of and is not supported by the case that he cites here, the Supreme Court of Canada decision…. Justice Bastarache makes a very significant exception and says: "Well, of course, any third-party group outside the campaign period is free to advertise all they want."

But that's not what this legislation does. It does the exact opposite. It extends the legislative restrictions. Now, that may be a good thing in the view of the government. That may be a good thing in the view of some citizens. But my sense is that the government has certainly not grappled with this issue, the way in which it's been presented here. It hasn't thought through the consequences of this proposed significant amendment, and the consequences could be quite sweeping.

Some limits, certainly during the writ period, I support. I think that's fair, for all the reasons that the Supreme Court of Canada set out: to advance equality, to increase public esteem of the electoral process, to maintain confidence in the electoral process, to not only give the impression but create the reality that wealth is not necessarily the operative principle in election campaigns, and that everyone has access to what they call electoral discourse — the exchange of ideas in an election campaign.

But that's during the writ period. So this extends it back. If one looks at the constitutional history of the British Commonwealth or indeed the parliamentary system, the instance at which a budget is promulgated is the main…. Indeed, the principal duty of the Legislature is to put forward a budget. So if these clauses of the bill and their definition of speech either for or against, directly or indirectly, of views with which a political party may be associated….

That sweeping definition may well impinge upon the right of citizens' groups to openly discuss elements that they want to see in the budget that may be associated with the views of a political party. But they may well — and it's not difficult to imagine this — have their own legitimate reasons for advancing a point of view that happens to coincide with the point of view of one political party or another.

I fear for the progress of this legislation because we only have almost 12 days beginning this morning, now 11 days, left until the rules mandate that this session will end. The government has control of the legislative agenda. We may never get to a clause-by-clause discussion. We may never hear from the Attorney General his explanation of what these clauses mean. We may never have that opportunity.

That's why I'm raising these clauses in some detail at this stage. It is because I am troubled by this legislation, by the absence of any explanation and by the real problems that I think these definitions create. This legislation — in setting out to solve the problem, if I can put it that way, created by a fixed election date and in imposing these restrictions over that period of time all the way back to December of the previous year — poses real problems for groups in society, be they business, non-profit groups, labour or whatever, that want to express their views about what should be in a budget when the budget is tabled, what isn't in the budget and why.

I want to go back to that definition. If they use advertising to communicate these messages, if they promote or oppose "directly or indirectly, a registered political party or the election of a candidate" — and I'm quoting from section 59 — "including an advertising message that takes a position on an issue with which a registered political party or candidate is associated…."

That's not to say that there are members. They're not even supporting the candidate or the party. They're taking a view, a position on an issue with which a registered political party or candidate is associated. What "is associated" means is very, very broad. It doesn't even necessarily mean that it's one that the political party advocates. A political party or a candidate might be associated with it in a negative way or might be associated with it as one option that they have considered at some point.

So it's very, very sweeping indeed. That kind of restriction is really something that I think requires the Attorney General to take an independent view, not a political party view. It's part of his constitutional role, a dual role, where he has an obligation beyond an obligation to his political colleagues in cabinet. He has an obligation to stand back from that process and take an independent view on: is this good legislation or not?

I encourage the Attorney General to engage in that process. Don't simply bring forward what's been generated by the political machinery of the drafters and the ministry and the cabinet. Take an independent view, as he's obliged to do constitutionally, of this legislation, and have a good look at this provision. In my view, it does not pass muster. It's not the sort of thing that should be supported.

Certainly, while third-party limits on spending are in general — certainly, during an election campaign — a good thing, for the reasons that the Supreme Court of Canada has set out, this piece of legislation is unworkable and will lead, in my view and my judgment, to a serious court challenge. It's thus far undefended and, in my judgment, ill-considered in bringing this piece of legislation forward.

The opportunity here to make some real reform, in terms of banning business and union donations and taking big money out of politics, has been missed. The Attorney General hasn't done that. Instead, what has been brought forward are some provisions that are very, very troubling indeed.

I speak against this bill. I know that other colleagues will address other aspects of the bill — in particular, some of the provisions that relate to registration. They are unduly restrictive, and I support what has been said by the member for Nanaimo about the unnecessary imposition of those restrictions.

This bill is a missed opportunity for real campaign finance reform, and it introduces some provisions which are ill-conceived, poorly thought through and

D. Chudnovsky: I am opposed to Bill 42, and I look forward to having the opportunity over the next few minutes to explain the reasons for my opposition. If I may, Madam Speaker, I'd like to begin by speaking directly to the Attorney General. I want to believe that the Attorney General either doesn't understand what he's put forward or that he disagrees with what he's put forward. I don't say this in a rhetorical or sarcastic way.

Notwithstanding my disagreements with the Attorney General about all kinds of things, he does have a distinguished judicial career. During that career, the Attorney General has been one who has spoken out and made decisions which are in support of the diversity in our community, in support of civil and legal rights, in support of the protection of the individual. In other words, I think it could be fairly said that the Attorney General can be described as a small "l" liberal.

While I certainly don't describe myself in the same way, I think that the philosophy and ideology of liberalism is a coherent and defensible philosophy going back to the brilliant Thomas Hobbes. I think that it is a philosophy and ideology of which the Attorney General can be proud, but this is an illiberal bill.

This is a bill which is illiberal in two fundamental ways. I once again speak directly, Madam Speaker, to the Attorney General in my hope that he and his colleagues will come to see that what they have put forward is a bill which is illiberal in two fundamental ways.

What are those ways? Well, the bill does two things which are both unjust and illiberal. It discriminates against poor people and homeless people in regards to their right to vote — a central right that we, in a democratic society, in a society that defends and advocates for the rights of the individual, should expect.

So the first way in which this bill is unjust and illiberal is in its discrimination against poor people in general and, specifically, people who are homeless. The second way in which the bill is unjust and illiberal is in the way that it is a dramatic incursion into freedom of speech and freedom of expression. This bill attacks, undermines and prevents legitimate participation in the political process and, in so doing, dramatically limits freedom of speech and expression.

Let me, if I may, begin with the first way in which the bill is substantially unjust and illiberal, and that is in its constraints on poor people's ability and right to vote. Here's the little trick, I would argue, that's put before this House — not a very clever trick, not a very sophisticated trick but a trick nonetheless. It's the piece of the bill that's put before the House, beginning in section 8, which reduces the requirement of two pieces of identification to one piece.

Now, you might think, when somebody who isn't registered to vote comes to vote and the government proposes to reduce the necessary identification from two pieces to one piece, that that would be a step forward. But here is the not so subtle and not very sophisticated fly in the ointment. That piece of identification has to include the applicant's name, photograph and place of residence.

I've had the privilege over the last several months of being the opposition critic for homelessness. In that time I have met hundreds of the thousands of homeless people in this province. I've had the privilege of speaking with them and hearing about their situations. Very few, if any, of those homeless people — they're our neighbours; they're residents of British Columbia; they have the right to vote — have a piece of identification that has the name, photograph and place of residence on it. It's mainly because they don't have a residence. If you're homeless, you don't have a residence.

The bill goes on to say what you have to do if you don't have such a piece of identification. You have to have two other pieces of identification. The new one is two pieces of identification that satisfy the provincial election official that the documentation is sufficient.

Now, let's get down to brass tacks. In an election where people are trying to give the opportunity to homeless people without a place of residence to vote — which they have every right to do; they're citizens like the rest of us; they're our neighbours; they have the right to vote — you could go to the local election officer and, with a statutory declaration, make sure that that person had the right to vote. This legislation which is before us makes it much, much more difficult and in fact unlikely, perhaps impossible, for that person to have the right to vote.

In theory, that shouldn't be a big deal in British Columbia in 2008. What's the big deal if we make it difficult or perhaps impossible for homeless people to vote in British Columbia in 2008? After all, we're a relatively wealthy society and community. What's the big deal?

Well, the big deal is that we've got between 10,000 and 15,000 homeless people in our province. It would be made more difficult for those 10,000 to 15,000 people to vote — perhaps impossible. That's unacceptable.

It's unacceptable that we would have in British Columbia in 2008 a piece of legislation put to us by this government that would make it more difficult and perhaps impossible for 10,000 to 15,000 of our neighbours to vote.

Moreover — ironically and perhaps not coincidentally — the bulk of that homeless total has been created since this government took power. The very government on whose watch the number of homeless people in the province has increased dramatically is the same government which is going to make it more difficult and perhaps impossible for those people to vote.

In British Columbia since 2002, there's been a 364 percent increase in street homelessness — something that should be and is a shame to every member of this House. All 79 of us should be, and I hope are, embarrassed that in British Columbia over the last seven

years, there's been a 364 percent increase in street homelessness on the watch of this government.

It's this very government that brings to us a piece of legislation that would make it substantially more difficult and perhaps impossible for those very people to have the opportunity to vote. That's unacceptable.

As I thought about this piece of legislation over the last couple of days and tried to think of ways to articulate my concern about it, my disgust with it, my mind kept returning to real people. When you talk about homeless people or people who are at risk of homelessness, who may very well have their right to vote taken away by this legislation, it's easy to dismiss those people as some kind of category — the category of homeless people. You don't have to think about individuals.

But as I said a minute ago, I've had the privilege over the last number of months of being the opposition critic for homelessness issues in the province. As a result of that, I have had the extraordinary experience of having met and spoken with hundreds of our neighbours in British Columbia who find themselves homeless.

So for me, they're real people. They're real people whose right to vote is in jeopardy with this legislation. I think about Jerome, who I met on Saturday morning last at Collingwood Neighbourhood House in Vancouver. Every Saturday morning at Collingwood Neighbourhood House — which is very close to the Joyce Street SkyTrain station, not the downtown east side — 70 of our neighbours, British Columbians, come for a free breakfast. I was lucky enough to be able to visit that program last Saturday morning, and met with Jerome at the table. We had breakfast together. He doesn't have a place to live.

This legislation threatens Jerome's right to vote and may, in fact, result in it being impossible for him to vote. He's a real guy. He's not some category. He's not some theoretical proposition. He's a real person. This legislation will make it harder for him to have the right to vote and may, in fact, make it impossible for him to have the right to vote. It's unacceptable legislation.

Like many in this House, I've been a political activist at election time for many, many years. I had the opportunity over many of those years to work in election campaigns on the downtown east side of Vancouver. I remember an election where I helped a guy vote, an aboriginal fellow. Never voted before. A homeless guy. I met him in Oppenheimer Park, a lovely guy.

He'd never had the opportunity to vote before and never been involved in the voting process before. I was able — and it was a great privilege for me — to go with him to the voting station at Carnegie community centre on the downtown east side, to speak with the deputy returning officer and to make it possible for that guy, despite the fact that he was homeless, to vote.

I have to tell you that there were tears in his eyes when he turned to me and said: "That's the first time I ever did that." There were tears in my eyes too. "That's the first time I ever did that," he said. That's a real person. That's no category. That's no theoretical proposition. That's a real person, a neighbour of ours, a person who should have the right to vote, and this legislation will make it more difficult for him to have the right to vote and may make it impossible for him to have the right to vote.

That same election I went to that same polling station with a woman, a homeless woman, spoke with the deputy returning officer, and I made it possible for her to vote. First time she'd ever done it before — first time. She came out of Carnegie Centre on the downtown east side, and she walked out into the sunlight — it was sunny — and she turned to me and said: "Now I'm somebody too."

"Now I'm somebody too," she said. "I got to vote." First time. This legislation will make it more difficult for that woman to vote and maybe impossible for her to vote — unacceptable legislation.

I want to tell you about Chris. Chris is a guy who lives in a dumpster, not at a door. He doesn't have an address. He lives in a dumpster in the laneway between Granville Street and Seymour Street in Vancouver. Not a category, not a theoretical proposition — a real human being. Charming guy. He has the right to vote.

If we were really a democracy, Chris has the right to vote just like you and me. Yet this legislation, because he doesn't have an address, will make it harder for him to vote and maybe impossible for Chris to vote — unacceptable legislation.

Or the emergency shelter I was in, in Smithers, a few weeks ago. Got a chance to talk to five or six aboriginal guys — charming guys, very friendly guys — and heard their stories. A couple of them were survivors of residential school. Very frank and honest guys. One of them said to me: "I'm an alcoholic. I'm a drug addict. I know I'm ill, but I know who I am, and I have my dignity."

He has a right to vote. He doesn't have an address, but he has the right to vote. He's a real person. He's not a category. He's a real person. He's our neighbour. If our democracy means anything, it means that he has as much right to vote as you or I. But this legislation makes it more difficult for him to be able to vote and may make it impossible for him to vote — unacceptable legislation.

A few weeks ago I was in the Kermode Centre in Terrace. A breakfast program at the Kermode Centre where more than 100 people come for breakfast because they haven't got anywhere else to go for breakfast. We walked in. This was in March. We couldn't find the place and ran into a couple of guys on the street. They asked us where we were going. We said we were going to the Kermode Centre and if they knew where it was. They said: "Sure. Come on. Follow us" — two native guys, aboriginal guys. We asked them where they'd been the night before. They said that they'd slept in the woods, slept outside. Lovely guys, charming guys with problems. They've got some problems. So do we; so does each of us have problems.

Wonderful guys. They slept rough the night before and slept rough the whole of last winter in Terrace. Two real people, not some category, and our

neighbours. They have the right to vote. Their right to vote should be as strong, as protected and as carefully nurtured as the right to vote for each of us in this room. But this legislation makes it harder for them to get the right to vote and may make it impossible for those two guys to vote. It's unacceptable legislation.

It's not just homeless people. There are thousands and thousands of people whose lives are unstable. Many of them live in difficult circumstances in the SROs in downtown Vancouver — those single-room-occupancy hotels. Many, many of those people don't have identification, picture ID with their address on it. Their lives are a little different from ours. They've got some problems, some of them. Some of them don't. Some of them have problems just like the rest of us.

Some of them have addiction problems, substance abuse problems, mental health problems. They're our neighbours. A lot of people get home from work in Shaughnessy and go in and close the doors and have five or six martinis. They've got problems too, but they've got a right to vote. They've got an address.

Some people in the downtown east side don't have an address, don't have that identification. They have as much right to vote as any of us, and this legislation makes it more difficult for them to vote. It may make it impossible for them to vote. It's unacceptable legislation.

The irony is, as I said a few minutes ago, that it's this very government, on whose watch the numbers of homeless people have exploded in British Columbia, who are coming to us with some legislation that would make it more difficult for those very homeless people to vote. A very significant contributing factor to homelessness in this province was the cancellation of the social housing program in 2002, which had been there under the previous government. This government cancelled it. It's a contributing factor to homelessness in British Columbia for sure.

A second contributing factor to homelessness in British Columbia, certainly, is this government's decision to make it harder to get on to social assistance and harder to stay on social assistance, and their cuts to social assistance. There can be no argument about that. Those are two major contributing factors to homelessness in British Columbia, and yet it's this government….

What a cruel irony. What an amazing and unacceptable irony that this very government that has contributed to the skyrocketing of the rate of homelessness in British Columbia on their watch — a 364 percent increase in street-level homelessness in British Columbia since 2001; on their watch it happened — brings in a law that makes it more difficult for those very people to vote, and may make it impossible for those people to vote. That's a cruel irony — a cruel hoax, we would have hoped — and it's unacceptable.

Recently there was a report from Simon Fraser University which indicates that there are between 8,000 and 15,500 people in the province who are homeless and who have addiction problems or mental health issues or both. The number that they have come to use is halfway between — 11,750 people who have addiction problems or mental health problems or both, who are homeless in the province. We know there are thousands of others who have neither, but there are 11,750 who have either addiction problems or mental health problems or both and are homeless in British Columbia.

That very report says that a contributing factor to those problems is the lack of resources and programs for those people that are the result of this government's decisions. So they make the decisions. They reduce the services. They're not there for people. They end up with addiction problems and mental health problems, and then they come to this House with a law that says it's harder for those people to vote or maybe impossible for those very same people to vote? That's unacceptable.

A couple of weeks before that, we had the Vancouver police department report on mental health in Vancouver — very interesting report, very laudable report, all kinds of interesting stuff in there.

What's most interesting as regards this piece of legislation is that the Vancouver police department says in their report that they're busy dealing with people with mental health problems because the resources and the programs that those people need aren't available to them. Who is responsible for that? This government is responsible for cutting those programs and those services that should be there, available to those people. Now they come to the House with a piece of legislation that would make it harder for those people to vote and, for some of them, impossible for them to vote. That's unacceptable.

The other piece of this legislation which is…. I wanted to make this point directly to the Attorney General, whose history as a defender of civil rights and human rights is one which, notwithstanding differences that we may have on all kinds of questions…. The Attorney General has a history of defending civil rights and human rights and the diversity of our community. Yet he brings to us — I'll repeat myself; I say this not rhetorically and not sarcastically — legislation that would significantly constrain the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression of people in our community.

I want desperately to believe that this Attorney General either doesn't understand the consequences of what he's brought to us or disagrees with them or both. I want to believe that this illiberal piece of legislation, small "l" liberal piece of legislation, is not what this Attorney General wants to bring to us. If one looks at the wording of this legislation, and I encourage the Attorney General to do that, it makes it impossible for 120 days prior to an election period for third parties to involve themselves in political speech. I want to believe that this Attorney General doesn't support that. I want to believe that. If 120 days is okay, why not 240, why not a year, why not four years?

What in the world is going on here when an Attorney General who is famous for his small "l" liberalism brings to us legislation — and I say this with the greatest of respect for his reputation and history — that, for

me at least, does not fit an Attorney General who can proudly say, notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with it: "I'm a liberal, small 'l.'" He can say that. He's got a history of doing that. In this legislation, I believe he contradicts that reputation and that history.

This is illiberal legislation. Looks what it says: the non-commercial Internet, telephone or text messaging communication of a person's personal political views is okay. Can you imagine how tight this legislation is that they have to put in it that you can phone your friends and talk politics?

It so constrains political speech that they were required to put into it a reminder that you can phone your friends and talk about politics. That's how draconian, how constraining, how outrageous this legislation is.

I appeal to people on the other side. I don't often do this, but I will. I will look at particular people on the other side. I refer to the Minister for ActNow. I refer to the Attorney General. I refer to the Labour Minister, and I know there are a couple of others whose reputations and histories as small "l" liberals are real. I disagree with them about a whole bunch of stuff, but they're real liberals, in my experience.

They have brought to us a profoundly illiberal piece of legislation, and I ask of those hon. members on the other side that they come to see the implications of what they've brought us. The implications of this legislation are that they constrain the ability of some British Columbians to exercise their right to vote — may make it impossible — and they constrain dramatically political free speech.

I believe that it's unacceptable. I believe that it's illiberal. I believe that it's unjust, and I, together with those on this side, will vote against it. We implore and invite those who see themselves as liberals on the other side, small "l", to vote with us against this legislation.

C. Puchmayr: I, too, rise in opposition to this bill. You know, it doesn't surprise me that this government would stoop in this direction to go to this type of legislation to prevent people from actually exercising their democratic right with respect to people who need to register to vote. As we heard from the previous speaker, there are some limitations and, certainly, some challenges to that. I will get into more of that later.

The other is the 120 days, the one-third of a year where third-party advertising is not allowed. I mean, this government could have taken some leadership. They could have looked at the entire issue of contributions that are made.

I know that a significant amount of money that goes to the Liberals comes from the corporate sector — very significant. There is a small amount of money that comes to the NDP in union donations, and I say small because 80 percent of the money that comes to the New Democrats comes from individuals — some from seniors and some from young people, some from working people, individual contributions. That's a fair way of looking at it.

The Attorney General could have quite easily brought in legislation to really clear the tables and balance the playing field so that donations coming in from other contributors would be limited in that aspect.

You can't have a democratic system that totally prohibits someone of a third party from speaking out and speaking out for a various number of reasons. There are certainly interest groups on both sides, and there is the small window during the writ where there are some limitations and restrictions, and that's been understandable. That's been acceptable.

To back that up and go where you could actually go through a throne speech, introduction of a throne, with some serious concerns that could be raised by either the corporate community or by the environmental community, the health care community, the organized labour community…. You're taking away the ability for an entire process while we are engaged in debating what the Lieutenant-Governor has presented to this House.

You're taking away the rights of a third party to communicate important information to people so that they understand what is happening in this chamber. The cameras are on while we're in here for hours and hours a day. That does not resonate out into the public, other than a little bit that goes on during question period.

It is really important that third parties still be able to come forward with initiatives, with ideas, with suggestions. Sometimes they could make helpful suggestions on where the government may be going wrong or, in some cases, where the government may be going right. But to take that away for 120 days prior to an election is something that has absolutely gone too far.

Many groups, maybe called special interest groups…. For instance, one of our members brought in a private member's bill with respect to antifreeze and pets, and did so after losing a pet. Certainly, it picked up some resonance, and it was in one of the magazines that people who own pets may be reading.

Now, what if that group decided to do an ad in their own magazine or to rerun that story within that window period of an election, within that 120-day period? They would be breaking the law. They would be in violation of this legislation.

It is unacceptable to me that in this day and age, in this democracy that we have been working so hard to build, to create, this government is prepared to start to take the chisel and chip away at it by restricting, by making significant restrictions that even in some of the more progressive countries and maybe even some of the not so progressive countries in the world would be unacceptable. That is very troubling to me. It is extremely troubling. What if the families of the Sullivan mine accidents…? They've been in contact with us, and they're concerned.

There is a piece of legislation, private member's legislation that we put forward, that I worked on with my friend from Columbia River–Revelstoke. You know, we've worked very hard. We've talked to the minister. We put a lot of thought into this legislation. We had our legal research look at it. Of course, the bill didn't see fruition.

What if the families now decided that they wanted to, on behalf of all other people working in the mine industry or working as paramedics or working as volunteer firefighters that could be exposed to that same type of disaster that took the lives of those four people…? What if they decided to run an ad in a mining magazine or to run an ad in a newspaper saying: "Promote candidates that believe in this vision, that believe in this safeguard"?

They would be breaking the law. They would be subject to a fine. They would be subject to a penalty for merely speaking with their hearts and being concerned about the impacts of the loss of their loved ones. That's where this bill is going.

It is going to prevent third party for a third of a year…. That's a long time. That would be January — let's say January 12 of this year — that the window is closed. January 7, January 12, early January, right after your New Year's celebration — oh, I can't advertise anymore. I can't have a third party comment. I can't place an ad. I am restricted.

That's unacceptable. That is absolutely unacceptable from this side. You know, the Supreme Court of Canada in Harper v. Canada…. A couple of things that really strike me…. One of the points that was made in the Supreme Court was that individuals should have an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process.

Well, let's look at how this legislation affects those that do not have an address, people who are currently homeless. We saw the increase in homelessness — 360 percent since this government has taken office. Some 10,000 to 15,000 people are homeless today. In the last election 15,000 votes would have changed the outcome. We would have been sitting over there, and the Liberals would have been sitting over here. We wouldn't be having this debate because there is no way that we would introduce this type of legislation. There's absolutely no way.

Now they say that they're going to restrict it so that a homeless person…. Let's decide whether this works. A person doesn't have to have two pieces of ID but has to have picture ID. Well, when does a homeless person go out and get picture ID? They can't afford a car. If you're homeless, if you're living in a car, you have some asset, but they don't have picture ID.

They have to have an address — one piece of photo ID and an address. We see so many homeless people that have no ID, that have lost their ID. I've seen the pictures on television where the shopping cart's thrown in the back of a garbage truck because they're trying to clean up a part of downtown Vancouver.

Everything that person owns is gone — every little picture of a loved one or a family and every piece of identification gone into the back of a dumpster or a garbage truck. So how is that person going to register to vote? And you need an address. There's an obstacle for a homeless person — isn't it? — an address.

So what's an address? Does the Pattullo Bridge have an actual address, or is it just a bridge from the north and south side of the Fraser? Maybe the Attorney General can ensure that all these sleeping places have addresses to cover that off. What about the guy that lives in a dumpster?

There's a person that is living in a dumpster that we heard about just recently from my colleague, and I'm sure that there are more people living in dumpsters. There are people living in doorways. There are people living in parks. There are people living where there's a warm air vent from a building that has a ventilation system coming out.

I see it here in Victoria. I see it in Vancouver. I see it in New Westminster. I see it now when I go to the Interior, to the Kootenays. It's everywhere in British Columbia. It's everywhere. People are homeless, and they are not going to be able to vote in the next election.

That is really sad. Somebody that's homeless is deprived of the democratic process that we used to pride ourselves on. We used to pride ourselves on it. Democracy is something that we should never take lightly.

You know, today we honoured the survivors of the Holocaust and their families. Look at what happened to their democracy, the democracy in Germany during that era, during that time. It doesn't take a lot for changes to suddenly start taking place and snowballing, and you start seeing a chipping, a sculpturing away, of democratic rights to people.

This is just another one of those, where you're actually setting a standard where a class of people will not be able to vote. A class of people. The homeless class are going to find great difficulty in registering to vote. Where do you find them? They're all over the streets, but they may be in a different location one night. They may be sleeping under a different bridge one night.

How will they be able to use…? They, as one person, have the right to one vote that everybody else does. It's not going to be available to them. That is really sad — when you take the rights away not only from someone to vote, but from a class of people. You're taking away the right from a class of people to vote. That's really sad.

You know, we have just sent a bunch of young people from New Westminster, from the Westminster regiment. They've just left and gone overseas to Afghanistan. You talk to them, and you know what they're going there for? They're going there to fight for freedom, to fight for democracy, to help this country build a democratic system where they can have a free and democratic system like we have in Canada, like we have in British Columbia.

But when they come back from their duty, they're going to see that here we are discriminating against a class of people. We are discriminating against third-party advertising for a third of a year prior to an election. That's shocking, Madam Speaker. You know, we're sending them in harm's way. Some are making the ultimate sacrifice. They're going there to fight for democracy and freedom in another country. Then they come back here, and we continue to chip away at the democratic rights of people in British Columbia.

So who has more input in the politics of this province? Is it a homeless person, or is it a large multinational

that is building independent power projects in British Columbia? Their money is going right into the Liberal coffers, for fighting their election. In the last provincial election I think the Liberal candidate spent $2 to every $1 that my campaign spent — only because we have a different way. We have people that are individuals. Some are single parents, and some are elderly people. You know, they're writing you a cheque for $20. They're not writing you a cheque for $100,000.

We have a different setup in our own system, where those with wealth have a better access to our democratic system than those with no wealth. That's not right. To me, democracy shouldn't be like that. I don't think that the definition of democracy in the dictionary says that. You know, democracy is supposed to be accessible to everybody equally, with some restrictions of age that we have — age 18 to vote.

Other than that, everyone should have the same right to vote and the same right to participate in an election — every single person. Not somebody that doesn't even…. You know, with a multinational, their CEO may not even live in British Columbia and probably doesn't live in British Columbia, yet the money that that corporation is putting into elections has more clout than one or all of the 15,000 homeless people in British Columbia. That's something to think about. That's really something to think about when we're taking away the democratic rights from a class of people and not dealing with the imbalance in political contributions that are made to political parties — a huge imbalance.

Here was a great opportunity for the Attorney General. I think somebody called him a small "l" liberal, and I sort of think he is too. I don't think he fits the same mould as some of the old Social Credit Liberals and the old Conservative Liberals or the elderly — what are the other ones? — Reformer Liberals. You know, he's been out there helping the little guy, and I've been reading about him in the newspapers for many years. You know, the Attorney General, once a judge and always speaking up for the little person.

Here was his opportunity to really stamp his legacy into this legislation, to say: "You know what? I still believe in fairness here. I'm not going to let the Premier muzzle me. I'm going to bring in legislation that is fair for all British Columbians, and I'm going to make sure that it's accessible, that everyone has the same rights to the electoral process that they should in this country."

He could have done that. He could have done that so easily, and then he would have come across the floor and sat back here somewhere. But, you know, we'll take that too. We would have taken that. That would have been, sort of, his cleansing from that side over to this side.

But, you know, it saddens me that he missed the opportunity. I would have so much liked to have seen the Attorney General go down in history with a legacy of this fair democratic process, fair accessibility to government, fair accessibility to the electoral process. Instead, what do we get? Discrimination against a class of people. Discrimination at an extreme that we've never seen before in this province.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

B. Simpson: I'll just make a few opening comments. Because we are constrained for time, we'll get into the substance of estimates debate.

First off, I want to thank the staff that are here, as I've said in other estimates. I know that this may be onerous and cumbersome and Chinese torture for staff, but it does have value to the people of British Columbia, some of whom are in the room with us today, and I appreciate their efforts to answer the questions that I will have as the opposition critic on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

The other thing that I want to say is that, as we have been clear in the past, the questions that we have are primarily to do with the political leadership provided on this file. We know that staff do the best that they can with the resources that they have. That is never a question in what we do here. The Ministry of Forests staff do a phenomenal job; the protections branch does a phenomenal job; B.C. Timber Sales. Everybody's doing what they need to do. Our questions are not a denigration of staff. They are simply to

understand what is going on in this file. I want to be crystal-clear, so that we don't get into that argument or debate later on in the discussion.

Finally, I think it is not over the top to say that we are in the worst straits that this industry has ever been in. It is still the primary exporter. It is in dire straits. As we have canvassed in question period, we are seeing, overnight, thousands of jobs at risk, threatened or lost. It is very unsettling for all of those families and all of those communities that this is happening. The theme that I will have in here is the same theme that we do have in question period, and that is: what are we doing about it, and where is the leadership that we need?

With that, I will move on to my first line of questioning. I did give an order to the deputy minister that we'll try to stick with.

On the round table and the regulatory reform. My question with respect to the round table is that nothing in the round table's terms of reference suggested that it was going to examine the impacts and implications of the forestry revitalization strategy of 2003. Will the round table in the background be looking at the collateral damage or the implications of the decisions made in 2003 to completely restructure the forest industry in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: The round table has two functions. The first and primary function is to look at the structure for the future of forestry in British Columbia. It will therefore, basically, get a blank sheet of paper to look at everything that's happened in forestry over the last 30 or 40 years, to have some feedback on that. They will receive outside expert presentations with regards to everything from capital and issues with regards to attracting capital to create jobs and investment in the forest sector…. They will also receive some feedback on issues in and around tenure, tenure reform and those things, which they identified early on as some of the subjects.

They will also look at the first nations relationship on the land base going forward, because it is certainly a significant part of the work in forestry. They have been asked to come to the round table, basically, by setting their own particular individual egos or ideas at the door, but obviously, also to be instructed by their experience when they do have any discussions at the round table.

The second piece is the community meetings, which are done, at this stage, by invitation. We have meetings scheduled in about…. I've done six communities so far. We will probably do 20 communities by sometime in June, depending on how we can schedule them, but we're doing two a day. Those meetings allow people from the community, as the member experienced the other day…. We actually say that anybody in the industry can come forward to those and have comments with regards to forestry.

That information is taken in a room, so that they have the comfort that if it does not necessarily match up with an individual's corporate responsibilities, whether it be with labour or with a corporation like an economic development officer or even a forest company, they have the freedom to feel that they can speak in that room with regards to what they think could change for the future of forestry.

That group…. Those things feed back in. There's also a public input process, which is web-based at the moment. There will be some public promotion of that web base to give people the opportunity to feed back into the round table.

Over the next 30 to 60 days…. The round table will meet again this Friday. They will meet a number of times in the month of June. Over the next number of…. They have actually done the analysis on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that will now be analyzed and will come back to the table this week.

That will then drive what type of presentations and information feedback they think would be valuable to them as they work forward and then go into the fall, where I would think that there would be a UBCM-type of situation where we would deal with local government at UBCM with some feedback and some other workshops that would take place in communities after we go through this first tranche.

Hon. R. Coleman: There were about a hundred people that submitted names to me. We went through them. The deputy chair — actually, the deputy chair is a deputy minister within government — basically coupled together the information, the resumés. We looked at them. I was looking for some people I thought that would be innovators. I had heard over the years from different people of different names in the industry that might be of value at a round table.

Once we nailed down a certain number, then we looked at the fact that, quite frankly, we probably could have gone with 30 people. We thought that was going to be a bit unwieldy. So then we tried to narrow it down further, talked to some people about the different people — references and that sort of thing — and then started to ask people if they would serve.

B. Simpson: Is it fair to say that as the minister you decided who was going to serve on the round table?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes. I made the final decision after recommendations to me from the people that were working on the file. We sat down and went through the names individually, together. We were looking for certain backgrounds — I mean, some background in somebody that might have some understanding of money markets, somebody that might have some understanding of the history of forestry, somebody that might have an understanding of value-added — so there would be a little bit of expertise there at the table as far as being able to have some background.

Then we picked the final names. I actually phoned each individual personally and asked them if they

B. Simpson: I'm curious about the background, then, that the two folks from TimberWest bring to it. As the minister knows, I canvassed this in question period. It's been a bone of contention with a lot of people around the province that you have two individuals from a particular company, the only major licensee or landholding company on that round table, and that company has made no bones that what it's doing is getting into real estate, land development and log exports.

In fact, the CEO just did an op-ed piece in which he says that it looks really good for Douglas fir — nice, peeler Douglas fir — log exports in the market because Russia is going to constrain their log market. As a consequence, where that Douglas fir comes from is an area that the minister had promised previously to start protecting, and that's the last remaining old growth on Vancouver Island.

How did the minister end up having two from one company and having that company be a land development and log export company? What expertise are they bringing? Is that the future, as I asked in question period, of the forest industry on the coast?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, Mr. Pinette, who is on the round table, is also a director of a number of other companies and has had an extremely lengthy career and experience in the forest sector, as the member knows. So to try and tie that his philosophies or understanding would be because he is the director of one company when he actually serves as a director on a number of other companies is patently unfair, I think.

Beverlee Park is a chief financial officer of a major corporation. We felt the value of somebody with a financial background at the table…. Quite frankly, I think that she's actually been a very good member of the table. She's made basically all the meetings we've travelled to — even given her busy schedule — and attended all the meetings we've had.

I think that she was recommended to me not by someone, quite frankly, from TimberWest. When we were looking, her name kept coming up as somebody that was very much respected in the financial markets and in her career path as a chief financial officer that would be a good person to have in the room.

B. Simpson: I want to be clear. I make no insult to the two individuals. I'm asking about the minister's decision-making matrix for who was put on that round table. When he talks about innovation, if you look at that round table, many of those people have been in the game a long, long time.

Small tenure holders are not represented on there. Manufacturers without tenure are not represented on there. The woodlot federation put themselves forward. The Community Forest Association put themselves forward. There were a lot of other people who have a very different view of an alternate forest industry there. And as the minister well knows, other union sectors wanted to be on the board.

Again, my question to the minister is: if innovation was the criteria, why not do an open call? Why not make it an open process and have an open process that people can have some comfort in that we are going to get a forward look in the industry instead of the representation of the minister's own choice with whatever the minister uses as a filter for innovation for the future of the forest industry?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again, let's not demean the people that have decided to serve. I won't accept that.

Each one of these people, when they were asked if they would be interested in sitting at the round table, was asked the question first. Would they set aside any biases that they had and be able to come to a table and listen to the people in British Columbia, in the communities and in the industry with regard to the future of the forest sector?

What the member describes would have been: "Now we're going to decide…." I didn't pick anybody because they were labour, small this, anything. I was looking for people who had qualifications, who would be willing to serve, who would be able to listen and who would be able to work with us to build a future plan that we would bring back to the public later this year on the future of forestry.

Now, the member is wrong when he says that there is nobody related to other tenure holders. There is a company there, that is actually not a large tenure holder, that does a lot of work in Downie Street timber in Revelstoke. They have a member on there. He also represents a pretty strong history in his own right in the value-added sector. There is an individual on there from a privately held company with large tenure in Tolko. There are a number of people at this table who have different experiences.

But just to be clear to the member, nobody was picked on the description the member had. If I had done that, I knew the difficulty I would run up against. That would be that if I'd picked somebody from a specific company and said that this company is now represented on the round table, ten other companies would line up and say: "We want a representative as well." If I put somebody from a specific trade organization because they were a member of trade organization on the panel, then they would all line up as well.

If they're picked on that basis, I thought I would end up with a rather large and not that functional of a table. I did tell everybody that we've spoken to that anybody is allowed to….

B. Simpson: Just to close this section, because I'm conscious of time. The minister's argument for just taking it in-house and using his own filters is that he didn't want a whole bunch of people from different sectors and then a whole bunch of people complaining that their sectors weren't represented. Yet on the round table they're listed with their affiliations. If you look at it, there's a cross-section. First nations are represented. There's a representation from steel, and so on.

The minister may not have intended to do that. He did it anyway. There are lots of people saying: "How come we're not on there?"

Again, I wasn't disparaging the membership. I was asking what the minister's filter was, because if this is the body that supposedly is going to determine the future of the forest industry, then I think the people of British Columbia have a right to know that the right mind is there and that the right criteria were used to get them there.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I can't let that comment go by, just as a comment, that I did something unilaterally or something. The member knows very well that there's the Council of Forest Industries, the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, the Coast Forest Products Association, various labour groups, different trade organizations, logging organizations, remanning operations, and organizations and what have you.

If you were going to have a large trade show and forum on forestry, I guess you'd invite them all, like they'd do whether they're having whatever forum they might be having or even the forum the steelworkers are going to have in Prince George shortly with regards to worker transition and stuff.

This is to try and identify a group of people that are working with us, but frankly, the public process will come. There will be forums, we think, later on this year, once we go through the community meetings with industry and labour. Those community meetings, along with the presentations….

You need these people to get the opportunity to focus, basically, on the direction that will actually enhance the ability of the public to do the input. That's what they're working on now with regards to that. I think that in the few meetings they've had, they've actually brought that a lot further than I thought they would in the short period of time that they had.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I think I've addressed the public process. Actually, there's a website. Any person in the public can make a presentation. All of those organizations which I mentioned, by the way, will be invited to present to the round table.

In addition to that, whether members of their organizations attend any of the round tables in communities across B.C., there will be a couple of days set aside, we think, that will allow them to come in, make a presentation to the round table, present their information to it. I actually have to say that the group of people that has done the work on behalf of government to put this together has done a pretty good job.

It's going to be a very live process, one that I'm not prepared to prejudge and that I'm not going to prejudge. I'm not going to prejudge the people around the table. I think they're pretty focused on what they want to accomplish there, and they know that it's not about them. It's not about some individual company or some individual trade organization. It's about the future of forestry.

B. Simpson: How are groups that are given invitations to the communities decided upon, and how do you decide what communities get a visit from the round table?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, we're trying to get to any community that wants us to come, but we started out by creating an initial list, because we thought we would try and do a certain number by the end of May and then into June. To date there are Campbell River, Port McNeill, Cranbrook, Kamloops, Prince George, Quesnel, Castlegar, Armstrong, Terrace, Smithers, Burns Lake, Vanderhoof, Mackenzie, Fort St. John, Revelstoke, Williams Lake and Port Alberni. Out of all of those, two need to be scheduled. The rest are already scheduled.

The Port Alberni one had to be rescheduled because we couldn't get in there because the runway was covered with snow. That was during that odd weekend we had a couple of weekends ago. We couldn't get into Port Alberni on the Saturday.

We have had some other communities ask if we would come, and we've said: "Yes, we will come." For any community that feels they really want us to come, of course, we will try. The way we invited people to the meetings is that we asked our district offices and regional offices for a list of people who they think we should invite from the industry locally, because they know which companies, union groups and first nations groups are there. They supply us with the invitation list, and then if there's something that we think needs to be enhanced — if there's something else that we know in that particular community — we do so.

We've had some groups travel down from one community to the other, because I think they recognize that we can't be in every community in B.C. But we will hit a substantial number of them, actually, by mid-June, and then if there are more, we'll just add them.

B. Simpson: The answer is: at the minister's discretion — who gets invited, what communities you go to. Is that correct? Are you deciding that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I don't think it's the minister's discretion. I actually bring the list of communities

to the round table and tell them which ones are on the list, and if they think there are any that need to be added…. We've asked our staff in the regions and in the district offices which communities should be in there and which ones should be added. I don't discretionarily decide the list. I ask my staff who is in a community and ask them to feed into this process. It's a pretty live process. It's pretty early on in the game.

We've added some additional groups as we've come along. For instance, there was an oversight in Campbell River, where the mayor and council weren't invited. It was a mistake that my staff apologized for, and we've since communicated with Campbell River and said that we will make arrangements to get together with them. Those things can happen at the beginning as you start on this process.

In most communities we've had the people that are involved in the industry show up that have the time to show up. Some people have said that they can't make it because it's on a particular date and they're not available, but they'll send us a submission.

We're not looking to exclude anybody. We're looking for input from a diversity of the industry. If somebody wishes to come to any meeting that we're having regionally, they're welcome to drop us a note, and we're happy to put them on the invitation list.

B. Simpson: I can tell you that it caught the community of Quesnel by surprise. An invitation goes out. Nobody knows what the criteria are for people getting an invite. That's a mystery to everybody. Only the people who are getting the invite get notification, and the press get a media advisory. I know that in my community there would be a whole slew of people that would have liked to show up at that thing, not only to hear what is being said at the table but also to be given an opportunity to participate.

In Quesnel it was an hour and a half; in Prince George, I understand, two and a half hours. Yet the round table's job is to determine the input and recommendations for a forest sector plan that looks forward for the next five to ten years. It's a public forest, so why isn't the format more open?

Why isn't the community notified well in advance so that the community can show up and see what's being said about their public forests in their communities? Why isn't there a public gallery that people can sit in with advanced notice so that they can show up? And then, after you have done your invitation-only presentations, why isn't the public given an opportunity, at that point, to then give input into the process?

Spend a day, a couple of days in these communities, and do it right. Instead of a fly-by-night visit, by invitation only that goes into a black hole. You get a couple of bullets on the round-table webpage. Then you have the option, if you want to, to fire something off on the Web.

Will the minister consider making this a more public process? It is the people of British Columbia's forest, after all, that this group is supposed to be determining the future of.

Hon. R. Coleman: If we're going to sit here with fly-by-night insults for the next number of hours, this is going to be a very long estimates debate.

The fact of the matter is that I said to the member that we're doing the round tables with the community groups — the industry and labour groups first. I said that probably this fall we would go to community forums. This is not a process that's overnight.

I don't know where the member thinks the people involved in this are supposed to find all the time that he thinks there is. You know, these guys have committed to 20-plus meetings in communities between now and the middle of June. They will, then, over the summer receive presentations and information from the public and elsewhere. Then they will go to UBCM and do a big forum at UBCM. Then they will probably go out and do community forums.

What the member is asking for is anticipated. It's just that it's not all being done, maybe, in the time line or the order that he thinks it should be done in. The fact of the matter is that those things are all anticipated to be part of this process.

B. Simpson: I'm reflecting the views of very many people out there who phone me up and ask these questions. It's my job in this chamber to do that.

Here's a question to the minister, then. This is the thing that's doing the long-term plan. The minister has talked about UBCM and then maybe community forums in the fall. When will this wrap up? When will we actually see "a definitive recommendation for a forest sector plan for the next five to ten years"? When will we see that?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member was paying attention to the Premier's remarks to the truck loggers. The subsequent information has been released. The draft plan has to be to cabinet by the end of December.

B. Simpson: I did pay attention to the Premier's remarks. He promised a whole bunch of — 90 days and all kinds of things — reports to cabinet and everything else, which we haven't seen either.

Here's a question to the minister. One thing that I find intriguing about the terms of reference for the round table is that the government has initiatives that are well underway and processes already in place for most of this.

Challenges and opportunities for climate change. I think we've got the future forest ecosystems initiative in the chief forester's office. You have your own climate change group that is being put together.

Remaining competitive in evolving world economies. The impact of innovation technology in forestry. You have FII and FIA. You have a whole board that looks at these things and all kinds of money going into it.

Changing demographics within an aging workforce. You've got all kinds of work being done by FERIC, beetle action coalitions.

Issues affecting B.C.'s forests, such as mountain pine beetle. Supposedly, there's a mountain pine beetle action plan — all kinds of things on the go.

Changing social expectations. That's an interesting one. Maybe if the public was really involved, they could tell the minister about what's going on down there.

Upholding first nations rights. The minister announced in Quesnel that there's a separate piece coming forward in the next couple of days about first nations access to the land base and resolving some of those issues.

Sustaining B.C.'s world-renowned environmental standards. You have a thing called FREP.

Over the last couple of years we've had Progress Board reports. In addition to the Progress Board reports, we've had two additional pulp and paper sector reports. We've had B.C. Timber Sales examining log and chip supply issues, and they did a structural review to see how they could get wood out the door better.

You have the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on remanufacturing in the softwood lumber agreement and fibre supplies. There is supposed to be, somewhere, a value-added strategy that still hasn't seen the light of day, the author of which is sitting in the back there. We haven't seen it. So you have all this stuff out there.

I also have a March 27, 175-page document supposedly giving the outlook to 2020 for the coast. I have The Status and Potential of the Coastal Secondary Wood Products Industry from March 2007.

How much did this all cost us? It all has action plans. It all has things that we should be doing, that we could be doing right now, yet it all collects dust on the shelf. We keep firing the dollars out the door, but what's the return on investment to British Columbians that these things actually get done?

After all of that — and it's being crunched because of time — I'd like to dig into how much this actually costs taxpayers to collect dust. My question to the minister is: what guarantee do British Columbians have, if this process is in any way meaningful and we do get a meaningful product out, that it will actually be acted on this time, that something will actually be done to restructure the industry for the future?

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member wants to give me a copy or a list of those reports, I will get him the prices for them. I don't have them at my fingertips, and I don't have the names of the reports that you're throwing around over there. I don't even know whether that stack of paper is something we necessarily funded or somebody else funded, or if we did it in partnership with somebody or whether we're partners to it, because I don't have it in front of me.

The member says that we have 90-day deadlines that weren't met to cabinet. You're not in cabinet, hon. Member. I can tell you that the 90-day deadlines have each been met as each thing has come through, and the reports have gone to cabinet. That's the responsibility of how that was laid out.

Everybody knows that there are a number of partnerships in forestry, and frankly, we like the FPInnovations' first thing, for instance, where we started to work on creating forest sector solutions. It's the B.C. forest coastal sector development proposal. It's a cooperative relationship between us and the federal government. It's following through on what we said we'd do in the coast action plan. It outlines specific projects, time lines and outcomes within that report, and they're all being followed through.

B. Simpson: Pardon my confusion, but here's a press release from October 29, 2007, that says:

Is that a failure of the coast action plan, which was only tabled last fall and set aside now while you go and have another year's worth of looking at what you can do to rescue the coast?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's an ongoing plan. The FPInnovations investments are ongoing. The measurements are being done. There are things happening on the ground. It doesn't mean that you don't actually try and take a larger look at the future outside of what you're doing today, and that's what the round table is about.

I know that the member opposite's party asked for a royal commission on forestry, so I guess you would have done a two-year process for multi-millions of dollars and come back with a royal commission report. I guess that's what you might have done, but the fact of the matter is that all of these things feed into each portion of the system and operations. The FPInnovations stuff that's being done as part of the coast forest sector is ongoing, and the money is being invested today.

B. Simpson: I want to correct the minister. We called for a permanent standing commission on forestry that would act immediately. The reason we called for it is that it's not our forest policy that has broken the back of the industry, that has hurt communities, that has caused the dislocation going on just now. We'll get into that a little bit later on.

If the minister is saying that that plan is still going on, then why is there a press release from the Ministry of Forests office saying that what is a big chunk of the coast action plan is now not going to be implemented — that is, the log export policy changes? The minister's office has come out and said: "Pending the regulatory

review, pending the round table, we're actually not going to do the log export policy changes that are promised in the coast action plan."

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, the coast action plan is being implemented. We've moved the weight scaling. We're moving from old growth to second growth. All of those elements are being implemented on the land base today.

The issue with regards to log exports. There are two challenges. One is that we needed to go back and do some additional work on the technical side with regards to a tax on logs leaving British Columbia off Crown lands. We have some issues we need to work through with the federal government. That's why it was put on hold. We can't actually do that with the resource because we have to have some assistance from them.

The issue in and around the private land log stuff. They have some issues with what they will and will not discuss. Those discussions are ongoing, but rather than have people thinking we were going to be able to implement sooner, we actually said that we're putting it on hold while we work through it with the round table and, quite frankly, with the other partners we have to solve these issues as we come through it.

B. Simpson: The weight scaling was put in place before the action plan was announced, so it's part of the truck loggers' announcement that kind of disappeared afterwards. The log export policy changes were supposed to be put in effect February 1, 2008. You'd think that the homework should be done before that, before you commit to a date on paper that these are going to be implemented. So that's a big oops.

Also, the weight scaling. If the minister takes the time to read the coast forest region revenue risk management plan for last year, weight scaling has been targeted as a significant revenue risk on the coast as we switch from scaling each individual log to weight scaling. It may work where you've got even piece size in the Interior, but where you've got a wide range of piece sizes, the weight doesn't tell you what the value is. So there are two aspects of the coast plan that are kind of oopsy right now.

I guess my question to the minister is — again, because you didn't answer it: what guarantee do we have that if people engage in the round-table process, we will actually see something in December — not get it held in abeyance before an election — that will actually be committed to and that the people of British Columbia can take a guarantee that it will actually be done?

Hon. R. Coleman: I have direction from cabinet and government to bring back a draft by December 31 to cabinet. Cabinet will then make the determinations on the implementation. It will obviously come with time lines attached to it. They'll make those decisions then.

Obviously, the guarantee is that it has to go to cabinet. The guarantee is that cabinet has to make the final determination on things that would be regulatory or legislative or, in some policies…. Most policies can be done within ministries, but some of them that would be of a broader scale would have to be discussed and decided on by the cabinet. Once they're decided on, they'll get implemented.

B. Simpson: So we will see that before we head into the election cycle. That will give an opportunity, then, for the people of British Columbia to make a decision as to whether that's the vision they share when they go to the polls in '09.

In the meantime — and here's the real crux — the industry is melting down. This group is going to be looking at the next five to ten years. So what plans does the minister have in place, what team? How is he approaching the issues that are confronting British Columbians right now as they lose their jobs, as they start running out of EI, as they start to deal with the implications of the current meltdown, the failure of the Pope and Talbot deal, whatever it is?

What process is in place right now to pull that together and make sure that we don't lose this industry and the structure of this industry while this round table is out there looking at this longer vision to fix the mistakes of 2003?

Hon. R. Coleman: Shortly you'll see the release of the community development trust, its format and its bridging work for workers into early retirement and that sort of thing, along with some education initiatives and some job initiatives. You are probably aware of the older workers' transition target initiative that we have. The member is probably aware of those.

We have made significant investments in forest investment and innovation with the $25 billion annual budget to promote B.C. wood and forest practices internationally, which is everywhere from China to Korea to Japan to other countries in Europe. It introduces B.C. wood products in Taiwan, and Australia as well, and develops new projects for wood, including mountain pine beetle wood, and researches better ways of milling and manufacturing wood products so that we can develop new products.

FPInnovations is bringing together Forintek, Paprican, Canadian Wood Fibre Centre, through Natural Resources, to create the world's largest private, not-for-profit forest research institute. It's working towards optimizing the forest sector value chain, capitalizing on Canada's fibre attributes. It develops new products and market opportunities within a framework of environmental sustainability.

The coast forest sector development plan is a comprehensive five-year research and development plan aimed at getting the right tree made into the right product to meet the right market. We have, like I said, the initiative for older workers. I'm sure that we'll talk about the mountain pine beetle action stuff a little later, as well as the economic development trust that we have, the $185 million northern development initiative,

We have the community transition program, where we provide assistance to rural and remote and resource-based municipalities as they face the effects and financial challenges resulting from closure or significant downsizing of their major industrial operations. The Ministry of Community Services assists communities affected by the closure and downsizing of the forest industry and those types of issues.

So there are a number of things that we're doing, as well as recognizing that we meet with the industry on a regular basis. I know that our guys work tirelessly to try and find ways to manage the fibre as best they can to keep it moving to the individual mills, etc. I know that they meet and try to solve individual issues, either person by person or community by community or company by company, as they try and do that on the land base.

B. Simpson: Again, a whole lot of that is that forward-look marketing and research and alternate products and alternate markets. What I asked was: what are we doing for the folks today? The answer I got, if I condense all of that down, is $129 million from the federal government, which I canvassed the Minister of Economic Development on and which looks like it's going to go primarily to some sort of older worker program. There weren't a whole lot of details yet. It's going to come out the door at some point.

The community-in-transition program. Well, for the last three years I have been in estimates debate on the community-in-transition program, and I suggest that the minister go look at the Hansard transcripts of that, because that's a program in name only, which does nothing to assist communities. In fact, last year the minister couldn't even answer the questions about what communities were potentially at risk when we were faced with a downturn in the marketplace.

It has no budget. It's one person sitting on a phone who says: "Well, have you talked to so and so? Maybe you should talk to so and so." That's not community-in-transition support.

My question to the minister is this. It's very explicit. The minister announced, today in Prince George, $25,000 for Prince George to bring some people together to address Prince George. When will Castlegar, Grand Forks, Kamloops, Campbell River, Port Hardy, Nanaimo…? When are they going to get their $25,000 to bring people together to talk about what they need as a transition strategy for their workers?

Hon. R. Coleman: The targeted initiative for older workers is $3.4 million starting March 2008 to March 2009. The member is aware of the community development trust. The details of that have been discussed with Labour, etc. I expect a release on the details of that very shortly. That would be coming through Economic Development and, I would imagine, the Premier's office.

There are regional skills advisory councils established at a cost per community. There are seven of those that serve mountain pine beetle communities and another two in addition to that. So there are nine regional skill councils, seven of which are regional to the mountain pine beetle.

There are negotiations going on in a labour market agreement right now that we think is pretty close to being finalized. It will include new funding for labour market programs and services aimed at those who are unemployed but not eligible for employment insurance benefits or programs, and those who are employed but who need an upgrade because of low education and low literacy levels. We think that's going to be here pretty quick. We're in the final negotiations on that particular program.

The question the member asked with regards to the community forum…. They're the first group that have requested one. If we get other additional requests, we will consider them as they come in. I believe it's the steelworkers that are putting together a forum for their workers, and they asked us if we would help sponsor it. They asked if we could give them $25,000, and we did. We would continue to do that in communities that asked and wanted help in regards to that.

B. Simpson: We are in budget discussions. I hope you've got the budget for that, because we're going to take the minister at his word. We'll make sure that our critic gets a letter out to every community that deserves to have a similar opportunity to pull the resources together. I hope that the minister follows through and cuts $25,000 cheques for them to hold forums in all of their communities. As the minister just listed, there's a whole bunch of initiatives out there that most of those communities aren't aware of.

When we get into the mountain pine beetle strategy, we'll take a look at the disaster that's turning out to be while every funding agency is forcing communities to go through hoops and rejig proposals to meet various levels of governments' or trusts' needs, etc. It's a mess. They're not being helped. So a forum like this would be good, and we'll take the minister at his word on that to make sure that that happens in all these communities. I hope the minister takes the time to attend them and hear straight from community leaders and the workers in those communities, who are very concerned about the future of the industry, and feeds that into this round-table process.

Here's another specific example of something that's been hanging out there for a while that could be done right now for a whole sector of the province, and that is the strategy for the northwest. The northwest has been sitting on a strategy for quite some time. They've been farming it around, trying to get funding for it. The deputy minister had an FIA meeting at one of the board meetings in October of '06. This is a direct quote: "The northwest is a potential fibre source as the mountain

pine beetle continues its devastation. Activities can be implemented now that will ensure better and more fibre in the midterm towards mitigating the mountain pine beetle. A Treasury Board submission is being prepared and, if successful, FIA funding may not be required."

So will that northwest…? I've been up there a number of times. The last mill in Terrace has shut down. All they've got are some logging activities up there. They have a plan. They've put it together themselves. Will that plan be funded so that at least that part of the province has the ability to take control of their own destiny and start acting on that plan?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're funding $1.3 million a year into a northwest strategy over three years. Over 500 hectares were spaced, contributing over 3,550 person-days of employment last year, in 2007-2008. Over 1,500 hectares were planned. It created over 430 person-days of employment as well.

The issues in and around additional funds…. We'll never prejudge the additional presentations to Treasury Board and this government, or any government. As the member knows, the Treasury Board process is confidential. But I can tell the member that that's where we're at with it.

I was up in Terrace with the Premier just within the last ten days. I guess it was on the break week, so it would have been within the last ten days. It was actually the Friday after the session rose. We met with them and their economic development people. We talked about their future. They have some very clear ideas that we've taken away to work with, for that community, with regards to what they see and to what they're asking us to look at.

I also met with my Forest Service staff, and we've done some improvement on some roads and things up there. I think that the critical future for the northwest is to find a use for the decadent wood that's beside the good wood. If we can find a use for it to bring it out, whether it's for bioenergy or whatever the case may be…. We have to come up with some initiatives on that. We're looking at that now. But it's a question of getting on the land base with something that will balance each other rather than just having the situation with the decadent and the good. The member knows that the mix up there is rather interesting from that standpoint.

So we are preparing some recommendations as a result of that trip and some other things with regards to sitting down with the Ministry of Energy and Mines on some that we think might be interesting options that we can bring forward to government.

B. Simpson: I'll pass that on to the MLA from that area, because that was one of the questions that I brought forward for him.

I need to go back to the $129 million for a couple of quick points. I asked this of the Minister of Economic Development. As he pointed out, the older worker strategy component of that is probably going to take the lion's share of that $129 million when it finally comes forward.

Will the provincial government be putting money on the table for forest worker transition? Because there are a lot — again, as we saw last week, over 2,000 — impacted, this $129 million is not going to cut it. We've also had questions raised today by steel as to who is eligible, and so on. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that because we have to wait for the announcement.

Will the provincial government be matching some of that? Will the provincial government put money on the table for forest worker transition, independent of the other things that the minister has mentioned?

Hon. R. Coleman: Not at this time. The reason for that is we're going to launch the program and see what its successes are, and then we'll deal with it within the fiscal plan, looking as we go forward. That was the message that the Premier gave to the steelworkers this morning as well. We'll see how this actually works out. The details of this, as the member knows, are about to be announced shortly.

The Minister of Economic Development, myself, the Minister of Community Services and the Premier have all had discussions in and around the fund. The fund will be managed and delivered through the Ministry of Economic Development. We felt pretty strongly over here in Forests that it wasn't a program that we should be running. Our folks are more attuned to the land base and dealing with the fibre supply and the work that they have to do every day. We thought that the capacity to deliver rested better with Economic Development. That was the decision made among the ministers with regards to that.

We expect that there are going to be some other opportunities to match some additional dollars. We're going to work the plan, get it out there and start to see what the results are and what the uptake is on it before we decide where it goes from there.

B. Simpson: I guess we'll have to wait and see. As I said, I don't want to canvass that too much more. I did it explicitly and quite at length with the Minister of Economic Development.

With respect though, the Minister of Economic Development did say that overhanging this $129 million was softwood lumber and what you could use, and make sure that none of it was going to be going before arbitration and stalling the whole process. I mean, that was something that we raised during the whole softwood lumber debate about losing our sovereignty and everything being subject to arbitration. I do want to spend a little bit of time on softwood lumber.

In that context the ministry is doing a regulatory review. My understanding is that regulatory review has taken the first sort of pass and has hundreds of suggestions. Where would I find the texts of those suggestions?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe I'll answer the first part of that question first, and that was with regards to

softwood lumber. When it's worker transition, our advice is that it doesn't affect softwood.

If we were subsidizing a company — for instance, if we were stepping in and paying their severance when they have a severance responsibility so they could lower their costs, or if we were subsidizing any of their operations — that would obviously be something to which the people in the United States would say: "You're subsidizing industry, and therefore, you are challengeable to the board of arbitration with regards to the softwood lumber deal." I mean, that's pretty clear.

The whole issue in and around softwood, the whole argument for the last 30 or 40 years, is that the United States believes that we subsidize our industry. So anything that is seen as a subsidy to industry would be of concern to the softwood lumber deal.

The second piece of the question is…. The member asked about it. Yes, we have done a pretty extensive regulatory review, and 525 suggestions came into government, cross-ministry and from outside government. That process was run by Dana Hayden, who came in and basically asked people to look at what could be streamlined. We asked all our staff, cross-government and internal to the ministry, what could be streamlined and what could be done better.

After those suggestions came in…. About 350 was the actual number, because there were about 30 percent that were duplicates. That has gone into a very aggressive process. That process is now in the form of what you would call a cabinet document. It's subject to cabinet confidentiality, and that's why it isn't posted yet. Cabinet will shortly, hopefully, be dealing with that presentation. I don't preclude to even discuss what is on a particular cabinet agenda, because I'm bound by certain rules that say I can't do that.

I can tell the member that very shortly that package will go forward to cabinet. Cabinet makes its decision, and then there would be a second…. Then at that point what is decided would come out and, also, what can be further discussed would go out to a public process with industry and participants in the industry over about a 60-day period after the first group, the first tranche, is dealt with. Then that would come back again to cabinet for recommendation on those policy reforms or regulatory changes, or whatever the case may be out of those. There will be a third piece that would probably go more into a legislative piece, because it may require some legislation.

We've broken it down into three pieces. One piece will go to cabinet…. The whole package will go to cabinet. One piece would be a decision document on a portion of it, and the other piece would be: "Are we okay with this? Now we're going to go forward with the rest." That would then come out all together. At that point in time, anybody would be able to see it.

B. Simpson: I want to be clear, because part of the struggle people have in British Columbia is that they've lost control over their public forest as it is. It's been deregulated enough. The fact that there are 525 suggestions of how to deregulate it even more would give people the willies.

So this needs to see the light of day. I want to be clear that the minister is saying that what cabinet sees, the public will see. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: The cabinet makes the decision, and then the decision is released. So, yeah, you'll see it.

Let's not couch this along the line for members. For instance, let me give you an example of one thing that came forward. You know, this is the type of thing that we found when we did the policy and regulatory review.

We allow for electronic filing of a plan or a permit. We allow that. But at the same time we were asking for six paper copies in addition to that, and we wouldn't accept an electronic signature. So it seemed pretty obvious that maybe we should look at that process and see if we could streamline it a little bit, because somebody is taking the time to do all of that work. That means that's a cost that probably should be streamlined on both ends — on our end and on somebody else's end.

As we went through this, we looked at a number of things like that. That's just an example. It's not about deregulating the forest. It's actually trying to deregulate and streamline some of the work we do, both with communities or whatever. Some of the stuff that we got back from woodlots and community forests — for instance, on their administrative time and cost with regards to a small fibre supply — we thought maybe we should look at.

So those types of things will be in that package which will go forward. That's what will go to cabinet, and of course, at that point in time, everybody gets to see it.

B. Simpson: I get the minister's innocuous examples of things that need to be tidied up. The woodlot folks have been asking for those changes for five years, so I'm sure that they'll be happy that something might actually happen to what they've been asking for.

I canvassed here in estimates before a letter that was written to the woodlot federation about the so-called deregulation that went on. He went from one-half of a file cabinet drawer, under the previous administration, to a file cabinet of four drawers full of filings that he had to put in under the so-called streamlined process. They've been talking to the minister about that since he was given this job, so I'm sure they'll be happy about that.

There's also a whole bunch of changes that have occurred over the years — take or pay, weigh scaling, decreasing utilization standards, reducing compliance and enforcement, self-policing and doing the kiln-drying of logs. There are all kinds of things that, I'm sure, are in that regulatory review, as well, that are much more than the innocuous little example that the minister gave.

I just want to be crystal-clear. The minister said that the decision will be made public, but will the actual document with all of the recommendations be made public? Will the public be able to see everything that's on the table in this regulatory review and be able to give comment on it?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we're not going to give you every little input form, but we'll certainly publish the list of all the things that were suggested. That'll be available to everybody.

B. Simpson: I look forward to that in the short term, then, and hopefully, people will be able to give comment on it because, again, it is the people's forest.

I want to shift now to a question about softwood lumber. Again, is a filter put on the regulatory review with respect to the softwood lumber? Is that having to be put on the decisions that are made about what regulatory changes are made or not?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have an international trade agreement, so whatever we do, we put a filter on at our end to have a look and see whether this is anything that could have an effect on that trade agreement — not everything that has to go to anybody, but we certainly do that. If there's something that we think could be of concern, we check it out with legal counsel and deal with it. That's just the operating environment. To change some of the things I just described, they wouldn't have to go to the U.S. That would just be some….

Every time we do something, we have to do a couple of things. First of all, we have to say, "Does this contravene any area of the softwood lumber agreement?" because it's an international agreement that Canada has with the United States. The second thing when we look at something is: does it require any form of consultation or accommodation with first nations? Everything that we do has to take a look at that sort of stuff. Every time we move those two factors are played into it, for us to have a look at it from that lens as we do things.

B. Simpson: With respect to softwood lumber, I want to spend a few minutes on this, understanding where we're at with that deal. We've hit some dates now where the deal comes open again, and the Americans can decide it doesn't favour them. We've got some options, etc. With respect to that, there now is blowback.

During this whole deal unfolding, we raised the whole question of the $1 billion that's being left behind. The minister stands up and says that the Americans have the right to question what we do to subsidize and support our industry, yet as part of that deal — the most egregious part of that deal, as far as many people are concerned — we gave a billion-dollar subsidy direct to that industry and to their communities. They can do what we can't; $500 million went straight into their industry to compete against us.

Then there was $500 million, or $450 million, because $50 million went to pay for any arbitration that the Americans decide to lodge against us — that's a nice gig, if you can get it — so that they can arbitrate at will without them having to pay up. The $450 million, however, is now being brought under question. I'm sure the minister is aware that there's a bunch of Senators down in the States saying that that turned into a slush fund for the Bush administration.

Is the minister aware, I guess, if the Canadian government is tracking what happened to that billion dollars? Are we paying attention to that, and are we making sure that that billion dollars of Canadian money went to where it was supposed to be and isn't putting us at a disadvantage to our American purchasers?

Hon. R. Coleman: The federal government, we understand, monitors that. We do have some representation from industry on some of these groups with regard to the foundations and who received the money. I think we canvassed that last year. We don't have that information here right now, so we will get you that information.

The relationship on that stuff north and south of the border is actually federal from a jurisdictional standpoint, but we will get the information for the member.

B. Simpson: I hope that this time, with all due respect to the minister and the minister's office, we actually get what's promised in estimates, because last year we didn't, and the year before we only got a portion of it. So I would like a follow-through this time to make sure that we actually get what we've said on the record here.

I'll take that as that it's a federal responsibility and that there's some information flow here. What is vital to us here is to tidy up some of the things that we all know were left hanging when the deal was signed off — in particular, logs from private lands. If they were manufactured into lumber here in British Columbia, we're not subject to the punitive tax regime going across the border. Is that going to be resolved? Are we going to get private land logs exempt from the softwood border tax anytime soon?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, as the member knows, it was a side letter from Ambassador Schwab with regards to this particular issue. It's not contained as a particular clause in the softwood lumber agreement.

We've met with Canada as late as last week. They are meeting with the United States. The subject is still on the table. They'll be meeting with them and bringing this particular issue to them with regards to whether there's now time or appetite to enter into that discussion still. They have not as yet. They've said there is appetite, that they're interested in discussing it. That's all the information we have at this point in time

with regards to the reaction of the United States until the meeting with Canada takes place.

B. Simpson: For those who actually pay attention to this, the issue — and it's a tragedy that we didn't get this resolved before we signed off — is that private land logs, which is a lion's share of the Vancouver Island harvesting activity…. If they are manufactured here in British Columbia, they get subjected to a softwood border tax that should not apply to them because they are free market logs. They are absolutely what the U.S. wants us to go to. Yet because the way this deal was configured and signed off, if we make lumber from those logs, they're subject to the softwood lumber tax, just like public land logs manufactured into lumber.

We have to resolve this, on the coast in particular, because it's punitive to anybody who wants to manufacture those logs into lumber and ship into the U.S. It makes it almost untenable for them to touch those logs for manufacturing purposes. So I hope the minister will champion this cause and get this thing resolved. We're already 18 months, going on two years, into the deal. It's only a deal that is ticking away and could be walked away from at any time by the Americans, so we need this thing resolved.

With respect to the softwood lumber, are there any discussions going on within the ministry to revisit the option A/option B discussion? We can give notice to the Americans that we want to change our standing, so are we having those discussions with industry?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've met extensively with the industry through the months of November, December and January, and none of them were talking about moving from option A to option B. We do have the option, as the member knows, to be able to move from A to B in either one of the areas of the province. Either the coast or the Interior could make the choice. Right now we're option A in both areas, and Alberta is also option A.

We can make a decision to change in January of 2010 if we wish. We get one chance. We get the opportunity in the agreement to do that at that period of time. The federal government will basically be outlining this fall some of the discussion points, if industry wants to enter into those discussions this fall in anticipation of whether either region wants to enter into discussions about which option they would, if they wanted to change from one option to another….

That will be an opportunity for industry and people to feed back in to decide that at some point in time. Then the government of the day would make a recommendation to Canada whether we wanted to change in either jurisdiction, based on the input of the industry.

B. Simpson: I just want to be clear. Tembec has not raised this with the minister — that they want the option changed?

Hon. R. Coleman: Tembec has been on both sides of it, actually. At one time they had an A, then a B, then an A, then a B. The challenge for Tembec is that they are in the Interior of B.C. They would be one of the few in the Interior out of all the industry. There are two areas — the Interior or the coast. It's not three, four or five areas that can go select the options.

They've given me opinions on both ways. At one point they thought they would like to move to option B at some point. Then they looked at it and thought maybe option A was still good for them. When I last met with Tembec, which was just within the last three weeks, they didn't bring it up at all.

B. Simpson: Well, Tembec at the Finance Committee certainly said that they wanted it revisited, and the MLA for East Kootenay wrote an op-ed to that effect, saying that it was a bad decision, and it's hurting the industry down in his neck of the woods.

So the issue as far as the minister is concerned…. There are people on both sides, people who don't want it revisited — we live with it and go through it — and people who want it revisited. As far as the minister is concerned, that's a decision yet to be made.

I just want to be clear that it's not in the works right now, and there will be a window where that discussion will be had through, I imagine, Council of Forest Industries and the Lumber Trade Council. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, and January 2010 would be the change if they chose to make the change in either region. It wouldn't be just the B.C. Lumber Trade Council and the Council of Forest Industries. It would have to include all the companies that are affected in the Interior of B.C.

They would have to meet in groups or whatever, and they would have to come back with what they thought the recommendations would be and discuss it and see if we could come to consensus. I wouldn't anticipate….

I know that if the federal government is going to start looking at having discussions — because that deadline is a year and three-quarters away at this point in time, and they're going to start having discussions in the fall — I would think that they would want that to go through so that they would know what position they would be taking by…. If it's January 2010, I think it would be probably by mid-2009 that they would want to know what the consensus and the decision of the industry was.

B. Simpson: I'd like to move on to what arbitrations currently exist — either pending or threatened arbitrations — under the SLA with respect to British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: There's nothing in arbitration that is directed at anything to do with British Columbia at this point in time. There was a surge trigger arbitration, as the member knows, where the surge trigger calculation was challenged by the U.S., both with regards to the option A area of the country, which is us, and the option B areas.

We argued successfully that preagreement data with regards to volumes, etc., should be included in

our calculation of the surge. We won that at the London centre of arbitration, I think it's called. But Canada lost on the other piece with regards to option B.

If there was a success on some compensation discussion with regards to what the other areas of the country did on compensation, we would be interested bystanders to see how that was calculated, but it won't affect us.

We do watch it on a regular basis, and we are keeping our eye on the ball with regards to it, but at this point in time we don't have an arbitration ongoing, other than the fact that we are part of that original one, which we won our piece on.

B. Simpson: I just want to be clear. The discussions I have had with people are that there's a potential arbitration around whatever happened to float timber supply for Canfor and Mackenzie — and that may be looked at as direct interference by the part of a political entity into getting fibre to that mill. Kiln-drying logs in the Interior, the 25-cent increasing stumpage and the community forest stumpage, which is an administrative adjustment to stumpage…. I want to be clear that those three are not either pending or possible arbitrations or that there are rumblings about them being taken to arbitration.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are a couple of processes. I mean, the member is asking us whether we have something in arbitration. No. Are we expecting something in arbitration? No. When we do things, we do have discussions with the U.S. trade representative with regards to it, advise them on what we're doing. If they don't come back and question anymore and they accept our explanation, then it just sits there.

They have asked, for instance, about the community forest a long time ago. I think that we successfully explained that to them a year and a half ago, and they haven't come back and asked since. There's nothing that we are aware of pending now with regards to any arbitration challenges under softwood. Now, having said that, we don't know what their legal counsel could be working on.

So whether they would decide they wanted to launch something tomorrow or next week or next month…. I think that they would normally discuss that with our legal counsel and have some discussions. There's no indication, at this point in time, that there's anything pending with regards to softwood.

B. Simpson: I'd like to move, then, into the implications of softwood lumber for the reman value-added sector and move into the whole value-added sector. That's where I'm going to spend my time, so if there needs to be a staff shift, we can do that.

I just can't help myself but have to reflect on the minister's…. I believe it was his throne speech. The only feedback that I got or saw publicly from the Prince George climate change forestry summit was the minister indicating that he'd had a conversation in the washroom with three value-added folks who were all pleased as punch that we had been involved in the softwood lumber and that they got first-mill price. However, prior to that, in September last year a report was published by PricewaterhouseCoopers that said it wasn't that rosy.

In fact, PwC's report stipulates quite clearly that the sector wants changes to the softwood lumber agreement, and I want to read into the record what they say. This is, again, a report paid for by the ministry to have a look at the implications. It's not a washroom conversation. It's not incidental to what the reality is that people are confronted with. It says:

I'll come to the public policy questions here shortly, but what is it that the government is doing to act on this report within the confines of the softwood lumber agreement? Are we going to try to get some of these changes to the existing agreement, or are these people stuck with this until this agreement ends?

Hon. R. Coleman: In going to page 40 of the report and page 4, they both start off with one paragraph that's part of this. I mean, there were some pieces, like end match and some things that they couldn't get in, but they still had the high-value cap protecting them at the border with regards to that on the value-added side.

In the second paragraph on page 40, and I think in the opening part of this document as well: "First mill is a financial benefit to independent remanufacturers in the order of $30 million to $60 million per million board feet." The Crown tenure is more valuable than first mill for these guys.

Then it goes on. We've continued to make the cat 2 wood program available, 2.3 million cubic metres a year. There's a new business innovation program where we've put $1 million into B.C. Wood. There's always, in a very complex international trade agreement, going to be something where someone felt that we should have got a little bit more of something.

There is one manufacturer who has spoken to me about end match, and we've tried to talk to the U.S. about end match during the actual negotiations. We weren't successful, but when the deal was done, the same individual still tells me today that he would still like to have end match in there, you know, to be exempted. But the reality is that he's saying that his business environment, with or without end match in there, is ten times better than it was when he was paying 29 percent duty.

So on pieces of this sector we're the ones that actually commissioned the report. You want to work with the industry to see how we can improve their business environment. We sit down with them now and say: "Okay. How can we take this and move this forward and work with certain pieces of it?"

B. Simpson: Again, the minister can point to individuals who may have been able to figure out how to deal with this and to make a profit and so on, but there's also a lot of collateral damage. In fact, the report on page 28 shows 14 mills that have recently closed within the context of discussions about fibre supply, policy issues and softwood lumber.

It also goes on to state on page 27: "A small number of companies on the coast indicate that they may drop their independent remanufacture status to pursue tenure. The rationale is that fibre supply is limiting on the coast and the concentration of tenure is problematic. Remanufacturers on the coast indicate that fibre supply security is of higher economic importance than first-mill, in order to sustain their operations."

So there are examples of operations that will not survive unless they get some fixes. My question to the minister is: is there room for us right now to get some of these fixes for the remanufacturing sector? Is it possible for them to be able to hold tenure and get first-mill, which would resolve these issues for the lion's share of this sector of the industry?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the answer is no, not at this time. We fought this pretty aggressively during the negotiations. When it came down to it, speaking to our industry, it was one of the things they had to decide — whether it was a deal-breaker for them. They decided it wasn't at that time. Some of them may have some second thoughts now in hindsight.

I just know that the high-value cap and the first-mill pricing was something that they wanted and they felt was more important than any of the other pieces that they wanted to have discussed. When it came down to making the decision whether we would support Canada's moving into the softwood lumber agreement with our companies, these were the things that were able to be accomplished.

I think that in a very intensive negotiation some other things that some people, in hindsight, maybe wanted more of afterwards didn't get done. That's because, frankly, the party negotiators on the other side of the coin weren't prepared to negotiate.

B. Simpson: I'll come back to the first-mill, but the issue is that when these companies had to give up Crown tenure, they found themselves in an untenable position because of something that happened as a result of the 2003 revitalization strategy, and that's the concentration of tenure holders in their areas. That's the number one issue on Vancouver Island.

We've canvassed this with the minister. The minister allowed a concentrated situation to occur and a full monopoly to occur on Vancouver Island. That was his decision when he allowed Western Forest Products to simultaneously buy Canfor's TFLs and Cascadia Forest Products. Again, we've had that, as somebody said to me recently — he called it Pac-Man — game occurring in the Interior.

We have very few tenure holders now who — and the PwC report points it out — have no compunction to give any of their off-grades, their trim blocks, their falldown products to the remanufacturers. Because before, they used to be able to trade logs. That was their leverage. So first-mill price doesn't help them if they can't get fibre, and the issue here is them getting fibre.

But there are also problems with first-mill price. Maybe the minister could get a briefing from his staff on that, because it's not working for people with respect to how it actually is calculated and the fact that it's based on total invoice. They have a whole bunch of falldown inside the invoice that is well below the 500 cap, and that's causing them all kinds of grief.

And they've got a CRA ruling that says: "Oops. Sorry. Nothing we can do about it." So even when they're in the first-mill price game, even if they figured out how to get tenure and get the stuff that they need, they don't get the full benefits of first-mill price.

I wonder if the minister can tell us what's going to happen with that. Will the CRA pursue that further and get it fixed up? Because it's a calculation problem, and it's a problem of recognizing the true value of the inputs to those remanufacturers.

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that we have some people that want to take a piece of the log that's of higher value and get the high-value cap and another piece of the log and get it at first-mill price, and the CRA has ruled that it's the whole value of the log; it's not a proportional value of the log.

We did take that up with CRA. My staff advised me that this issue hasn't been brought up to them for some time since the CRA ruled on this. It's not that the issue has gone away but the CRA have actually ruled, and I guess if the member has ever dealt with the Canada Revenue Agency, that pretty much rules it. If industry wants us to, we'll bring it back up to them again and try it again.

B. Simpson: It was brought up to me today in a conversation I had with somebody in that sector. So it persists in being an issue. I guess the reality is that with the collateral damage from the softwood lumber agreement and what these remanufacturers had to decide on giving up tenure, we're seeing some of these mills start to really struggle.

The issue is — and I'm going to get into it in more detail here now — that the remanufacturing sector, the value-added sector or all of those operations that still produce in a down market are not there to pick up the slack on jobs. They use the wraparound. We would have a housing market go down, and the value-added remanufacturing sector, because they're often in the renos market, would often come up in the same market conditions.

We know that there's lots of demand down in the United States for reno-type products that a lot of these mills used to provide. They also provided chips and residuals and so on for the pulp sector, for cogeneration facilities, for some of the blueberry plants and others that are having trouble going on here. But what we did in 2003 is we collapsed this industry to a few remaining major corporations that produce high-volume dimension lumber for the U.S. marketplace, and we've taken the value-added and remanufacturers out of the business.

I want to go into that a little bit, because there is a lot of detail and information on this. Some of it becomes out of TSAC, with the B.C. Timber Sales. I'll reference the TSAC minutes.

Where this comes from. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report points it out on page 10. It says, "Throughout the 1990s…the mid-2000s, the Canadian secondary wood products industry experienced steady growth" — right up through the 2000s, it experienced steady growth. "However, since mid-2004 industry revenues have been in decline. One possible positive influence on this observed growth was the existence of the B.C. Forest Act, section 21 program that was used extensively by independent remanufacturers to procure fibre. This program ended in 2003." That's the cat 2 program. That's the PricewaterhouseCoopers report — not mine.

Now, it hasn't really ended; we just don't know how it's working. We still have some cat 2s out there. We have people who can't qualify because we're not allowing anybody new to come into the program. There is still some supposed partition out there, but B.C. Timber Sales is supposed to manage it, and it's a bit of a mess.

There have been all kinds of discussions in the timber supply advisory committee for B.C. Timber Sales. Most notably, in October 2006, this issue is in their minutes. "Cat 2 is identified as a big issue in the structural review." We canvassed the structural review last year.

Dave Peterson noted that the review was not the place to resolve the cat 2 issue. "It's a broader issue than B.C. Timber Sales that needs to be addressed in terms of government's value-added strategy and the softwood lumber issue. Members raised concerns" — this is members of TSAC — "about the lack of clarity regarding the government's value-added policy and the implications for B.C. Timber Sales, if it loses the small business cat 2 clients."

Hon. R. Coleman: We're continuing to put out 2.3 million cubic metres in cat 2, and we're going to continue. We've told industry that that's not going to stop. It's going to go on and continue. We have a review going on with them and us that will bring a recommendation to the minister in the next few months, I understand. A recommendation may come forward to unfreeze the program. That's in discussion with the remanufacturing side and the ministry officials.

B. Simpson: So right now getting into category 2 is frozen — no more cat 2 entrance. Only the ones that are left can get into that partition. Is that right? Will we be unfreezing category 2?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's been frozen for some time, since about 2003. Right now the discussion and the work that's being done is about bringing a recommendation to the minister whether it should be unfrozen. That work is going on.

B. Simpson: Well, I hope that there is clear direction. Again, minutes from TSAC state categorically that part of the problem of the current situation with cat 2 is that the current direction from the minister is posing implementation challenges, phasing out cat 2 in the long term while in the meantime maintaining the current cat 2 commitment and recognition of its role and then adding, as we'll see, a new tenure.

That new tenure was a tenure that the minister introduced in legislation last spring. The minutes of the Timber Sales Advisory Council for B.C. timber sales are quite interesting. They point out…. It's right in the minutes from the TSAC members, "Regarding the new restricted-tenure-program proposal, TSAC members voiced considerable concern about the ministry's lack of consultation to date with the forestry associations who represent the value-added sector" — that that is a parallel program outside of B.C. timber sales that somehow is supposed to find unallocated tenures, unallocated volume in various regions and give them out as separate entities. It's a restricted, non-renewable forest licence.

If I understand the minister correctly, we're now going to go back and revisit cat 2 — five years to go back and revisit a program that everybody said was working. It needed some adjustments but was doing its job. We're going to go back and revisit that. We now have another restricted new tenure out there — non-renewable. Has anybody been issued one of those tenures since we passed that legislation last spring?

Hon. R. Coleman: The regulations for the legislation, I'm told, are basically complete and will be coming forward to cabinet very shortly. That would then allow us to advertise the tenure. So at this point, no. After the legislation was done, they had to go do the regulatory work, and they've had discussion with industries with regards to that form of tenure. That work, I'm told, is now basically complete and will come forward shortly.

On the cat 2, we were asked if we would take a look at opening it back up to new entrants. I asked our guys to do the work, and they're coming back with a recommendation. That's working with the advisory councils and the groups.

That's great, because the minister heard loud and clear in Quesnel from Canfor. We're going to talk about this some more tomorrow.

Where's the volume in many of these areas? You've got the cat 2. It's supposed to be still a partition cut of some kind. B.C. Timber Sales has got it. This new restricted non-renewable forest licence is supposed to come out of unallocated areas. Well, do we have unallocated areas? Is there volume that actually exists for these folks? That's a huge question.

While all this is going on, according to the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association, in the last six years since the Liberal government has been in power, they've had 21 member companies with 679 employees go out of business. Of the 92 remaining members, many are presently curtailed. In fact, the total curtailments amount to another 813 jobs over 59 companies.

According to a document that was given to me in Prince George, Masse Sales, a key supplier to secondary manufacturers and value-added, suggested that 70 value-added companies have disappeared from its B.C. client list in the past two years alone. That was given to me this year.

We're losing this sector. We're losing a sector that could provide good jobs, that could wrap around what's going on in the industry in the primary sector just now and that could actually help make the primary sector work, because they buy a lot of their off-grades and their products to make products out of it.

We're losing a good sector. We're first in dimension lumber. We're third in Canada on value-added. The independent lumber manufacturers point out that B.C. supplies only 1 percent of the U.S. value in the value-added market — 1 percent. We supply 30 percent of the framing lumber that the U.S. uses. Surely we can grow that 1 percent and grow jobs and benefits from B.C.'s public forests.

The issue is not just the loss of section 21, as the PricewaterhouseCoopers report points out. It's the issue of constrained fibre supply. It's the issue of log exports. It's the issue of improving stumpage for them. It's the issue, as they have indicated, of tenure reform.

Now, on Voice of B.C. the minister indicated that he is looking at tenure reform. Is tenure reform on the table just now?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's not, just for a second, say that section 21 was a panacea from 1987 to 2003, either, because from 1987 to 2003 our value-added sector lost market share in Canada. Everybody else's value-added sector grew. Ours actually lost market share, which is not…. I just think we have to be careful what's a panacea and what isn't. It is one of the issues that has been put on the table by the people at the round table as something that they want to look at, and that is tenure reform.

B. Simpson: Does a document exist inside the ministry that outlines the nature of the discussion that will occur on tenure reform? If so, can we have it public?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is a document on what we call the intranet, internal to the ministry, that basically asks questions about tenure reform to stimulate discussion but makes no preconclusions. It doesn't show an opinion. It was just to stimulate discussion and to ask people to ask questions, to feed back in on their thoughts with regards to tenure reform. We're happy to make that public, so we'll make the arrangements to do so.

B. Simpson: As the minister well knows from when the chief forester popped up in Prince George and talked about the possibility of some privatization of the tenure system, you see that it's still a sore point with most British Columbians. Tenure has to be addressed. All you have to do is go on the round-table website. In every community that the round table has been in, tenure needs to come on the table. We need to reform it.

The reason we need to reform it is because since 2003 we have collapsed the industry to a few high-volume dimension lumber producers. I'd be happy to share this, if the minister hasn't seen it. The real reason that we are getting the depth of the woes that we've got just now is because we have collapsed the industry to high-volume dimension lumber for the U.S. market. In fact, stats show that in 2004, at the peak of the U.S. market, we were overproducing for that marketplace, and we were driving prices down back then. That's why we need the value-added. That's why we need the remanufacturing. We need to regrow this industry.

And the minister…. Yes, if you go to 2003, you can say that we lost market share. Go back to 2000, and you'll find that we didn't. We grew it. In fact, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report states that we grew it through 2000. As a consequence…. Again, if the minister wants to set the record straight, then let's set it straight.

The issue that we have is that we're going to do all those ad hoc things. Actually, maybe I'll go to one thing to show the case of ad hoc before I come back to my final comments on this. In 2005 the minister made two announcements with significant capital investment promises and significant job promises.

In October 2005 the minister made an announcement in which the Quesnel and Vanderhoof areas were going to get 640 jobs. They were going to get $110 million in investment because the minister was going to issue forest licences to a company during a whole other process for issuing licences that independents — people who had mills, people who were already in the game — couldn't apply for. It had to be a new venture.

November 2005, a promise of a $400 million investment in the same regions and 750 jobs. So by my calculation, in 2005 — we're 2008 now; three years later — we should have had an additional, if my math is right, about 1,400 jobs, and we should have had an investment of over half a billion dollars.

Hon. R. Coleman: The one licence, which was Ainsworth…. Ainsworth has not indicated to us for sure which way they're going to go. They would have

to start to construct a plant by January 1, 2009. They haven't given us any formal direction.

We do understand where the situation is with OSB, as the member opposite does as well. On the pellet one, it was purchased by Pioneer Logs, and they've indicated to us — log homes…. They indicate that they are planning to continue with that proposal under the pellet side and, also, to pursue some interests in bioenergy. That is what we understand.

If they were unable to meet the requirements of the licences, we would take them back, and we would put them back up for sale.

B. Simpson: Again, like I said, the time constraint because of this new structure is problematic. Pinnacle Pellets is involved in the Pioneer Log Homes. They're going to build the pellet plant at the Dunkley Lumber site or just down the road from it. They're going to do that.

The problem was how these licences were issued. These licences were issued in a way that others who could actually use that wood for a whole bunch of other things…. We would have actually seen more jobs in the interim. We would have seen investment in the interim, had they been allowed to bid on them.

What we have, and the minister well knows and should well know…. We're not getting an OSB plant in the interior. We're not going to get all of the four or five pellet plants that were promised. So 1,400 jobs were promised, half a billion dollars in investment, and we're going to get a pellet plant beside Dunkley.

B. Simpson: Yes, it's a new plant with maybe 14 or 15 jobs, not 1,400 jobs. I think if I did my math right, that's 10 percent of the promise.

My point here is that the minister's approach to this is not strategic. We've been promised value-added strategy in B.C. since October 25, 2005. Here are the minister's own words in the House: "I think we should recognize that we have a value-added strategy in B.C. I've read it. It's a very good one. It's got a sound basis and business principles and has sound supports for it."

I asked in the spring of '06 where that plan was, and again, the author is sitting behind the minister just now: "We've been working on this for some time, but it's actually coming through in draft now pretty quick. We're working with B.C. Wood and Forintek on an implementation strategy. Our expectation is that it will be ready to roll out by the end of September."

That would be in September 2006. I asked again in the spring of 2007 where it was:

On April 19, 2007, I asked: "I just want to be clear before I go on to the next question and the minister's answer: is there or is there not a definitive value-added strategy forthcoming for the province?" The minister's response was: "Absolutely."

On Voice of B.C. the minister said — this is November of '06 — "We have a pretty good value-added strategy actually, and we keep adding to it as we go through."

My question to the minister is: where is the value-added strategy? I've asked for that value-added strategy since 2005. That's what's missing. That's the framework that's missing for value-added remanufacturers. It's not just about getting fibre to them. It's about log exports. It's about tenure. It's about the softwood lumber. It's about their training needs. It's about a whole host of things that were there through 2000 and that were gutted by this government.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, Member, we gave a million dollars to B.C. Wood in September of 2007, which was towards the expanded program to help the value-added product manufacturing to implement the plan. They've been doing that through technology, planning and marketing skills.

When that's combined with the Solutions for Wood program, which is delivered through FPInnovations, which is also part of that strategy and funded mostly by FII. It's a total of another $1.8 million annually that's funded into that.

If you would read their newsletter, they will actually tell you there about the program, which is "aimed at assisting small and medium-sized value-added wood products companies with their business development needs. The program is available to all value-added producers across the province and will provide a wide range of business development services. There are approximately 700 specialty wood products companies in B.C. These businesses employ 20,000 people and generate about $5 billion of sales." That is from the newsletter from B.C. Wood.

B.C. Wood manages those funds and manages that program. In addition to that, we've also made commitments to help them to offset, for very small business people — to be able to fund them to be able to participate in trade shows, to take their markets not just into the U.S. but also to other areas of the world, where we will assist them.

Hon. R. Coleman: In working with B.C. Wood and other sectors, they felt that this was the most important

piece that they wanted to run the strategy. They felt that as an industry group they would drive the strategy with industry, and that's why we funded them.

B. Simpson: I met with B.C. Wood, and they want a strategy as well. I mean, this is a piece of it. This is something that we can go out and that we can market and so on. But what is the holistic strategy so that we don't lose the value-added remanufacturing sector? We are losing it. As early as February of this year, again, the TSAC discussion for B.C. Timber Sales is that 20 more companies have gone out of business because of fibre shortages. You can have all the markets you want. You can have all the innovation you want. If you can't get logs, if you can't get raw materials, what good does it do for you?

I would like to see that strategy, and the people of B.C. would like to see that strategy. Otherwise, here's the future, and a portion of this we read in question period today. This is from Paragon Wood Products.

My question to the minister is this: where is the value-added strategy that is going to take all of the factors — log exports, tenure — all of the issues associated with them getting the raw materials they need from the major licensees? Many will not give to remanufacturers because they compete with them in the same business down in the United States — with a better product, in many cases, because finger-jointed 2-by-4s are straighter and truer than much of the primary 2-by-4s that are produced.

The question to the minister is this: how are we going to stop these closures? Where is the more comprehensive strategy? Not a letter from B.C. Wood, but where is the strategy? What is the consultation process? How are we going to make sure that this sector becomes robust and viable again?

Hon. R. Coleman: The value-added strategy called for CAP 2 to continue, and we did that. It called for ramping up of the volume sold in BCTS, and we've done that. It said, "Do a marketing and innovation program," and we invested a million dollars with B.C. Wood and another $1.8 million with FPInnovations to do that. We said, "Move wood into the hands of things like community forests and first nations," and we've done that.

The strategy that the member refers to contained all those elements. We've been implementing it with our industry partners, particularly B.C. Wood.

B. Simpson: Yet the mills close, and people lose their jobs. Maybe the minister needs an independent assessment of whether or not all of that money is being spent in the right place, or release the strategy. But let's move on.

Another whole fiasco of public policy that I want to move into — private land removals and a discussion of some of the tenure things that are going on just now. Has the minister had discussions with the Auditor General about his review of Western Forest Products private land removal?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes. Well, not verbally. The Auditor General submitted a list of questions to my office, which we responded to in writing, back to the Auditor General, about a couple of weeks ago, I guess it was.

B. Simpson: That's funny, because on Voice of B.C. with Vaughn Palmer, the minister said he had a conversation with the Auditor General about this specific private land release. The Auditor General and he had a discussion about maybe it should have been a different process that was used before the lands were released.

Did you have a conversation with him, or did you misrepresent the nature of that feedback with the Auditor General with respect to Western Forest Products private land release?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't want to mislead you. Your question was with regards to the private lands. I thought you were referring to the review that the Auditor General was doing. That was prior to any review. It was a short conversation with regards to that. That was not part of any review process.

B. Simpson: I can go get the transcript. The transcript was specifically within the context of the Auditor General doing a review of the Western Forest Products private lands. The minister said he'd had a conversation with the Auditor General about that and agreed that probably there should have been some kind of different process, or the Auditor General raised the

possibility of a different process. So the minister had a conversation. I guess the transcript will show that there's some confusion around that.

With respect to what's actually going on, is the Ministry of Forests and Range going to be responding to this Auditor General's report? Will they see it before the public sees that report, and will they be given the luxury of a response before it hits the public?

Hon. R. Coleman: My experience with the Auditor General would be that if he decides to do a review of something, he does it based on his terms. He usually provides a copy or draft for comment by the ministries that he's dealing with, who then respond. Those responses are often included as part of the final report or comments to the report. That's how his process would work out, and he's in that process now. Whether he chooses to do that in this particular case is his call, not ours.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to rise and participate again this year in the estimates for the Ministry of Forests.

We're talking at this point in time about the deletion of private lands from TFLs on Vancouver Island — TFLs 6, 19 and 25. The minister will know the enormous destabilization that has taken place in my community as a result of that decision. I raised these issues in estimates last year and was given an assurance, or given an answer, that there was every expectation by government that these lands would remain in forest production.

Shortly after that answer was received, Colliers International put many of the lands on the real estate market. They were sold conditionally to a developer. From that point on I've been putting out fires. I've been dealing with disgruntled constituents, whether they be large landowners or no landowners at all.

I'm just curious if the minister…. Reflecting back on that decision last year, what was the benefit to the province? What was the benefit of that decision to my community?

Hon. R. Coleman: Our understanding is still that Western Forest Products hopes to maintain the majority of the lands in managed forest lands. There are some times when lands are at higher or best use. Maybe your community doesn't want logging in an area where there might be visual qualities or whatever the case may be, and each one of those would be dealt with.

The conditions that this was done on: there were no log exports from the affected lands for three years, even if the lands were sold to another party; an agreement to work with the Minister of Environment for protecting ungulate winter range; maintenance of current ISO and/or CSA sustainable forest management certification; a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Forests and Range regarding established research pilots on private land; continued recreation access to the removed private land subject to available funding; and continued access for first nations using neighbouring Crown lands for hunting, fishing and cultural purposes.

J. Horgan: Well, those are conditions. That's not a benefit to the community and certainly not a benefit to the people in Jordan River, Otter Point and Shirley.

The ungulate ranges that the minister refers to, I believe, are still in some doubt as well. I don't want the minister and his staff to have to rifle through briefing materials to find the answer to that, but just for the minister's edification, I'm advised that there's still some conflict over that issue. Only two of the three first nations in my constituency were consulted. Of course, there was a debate as to whether that was adequate consultation.

I'll move on and ask the minister if he is aware of any legal action that was contemplated between Western Forest Products and the province of British Columbia at or around the time of the deletion.

Hon. R. Coleman: My staff advised me that there may have been historical lawsuits, but they're not sure of the timing of them. They would have to look that up, and they don't have the information here.

J. Horgan: Then are the minister and his staff saying that there may have been lawsuits between Western Forest Products and the province that happen to coincide with the deletion of the lands? If they are saying that, are those lawsuits ongoing, or have they been withdrawn?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, we'll get for the member any status of any legal proceedings. But I should tell the member this: there was no consideration or deal made with regards to any lawsuit relative to this deletion. It was not part of the decision-making process.

J. Horgan: Can the minister advise if Lee Doney was involved in any discussions with the minister or his staff leading up to the deletion of these lands from the TFLs?

J. Horgan: So then the minister can confirm that during the discussions with respect to the deletions of private lands from TFLs on Vancouver Island, which I believe span two years, Lee Doney was not involved in any way in any of those discussions.

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Doney was on Western's board around this time, we believe. My staff don't remember having any conversations with him with regards to this deletion.

I don't recall having any formal discussions with Mr. Doney, but I may have seen him in his capacity in other roles with government over that period of time. Whether he mentioned it to me or not, I don't recall.

There were certainly no formal discussions, and he wasn't any part of any negotiation.

J. Horgan: During the negotiation what other ministers were involved, or was this a decision made exclusively by the Minister of Forests?

Hon. R. Coleman: Through the deletion process, our staff may have had conversation with other ministries. Whether they made mention to their ministers of it or not, we're not aware of that.

J. Horgan: Through the FOI process, certainly there was back and forth on the ungulate issue with MOE. Unfortunately, I don't believe there was any consultation with Aboriginal Relations.

The minister, in his role as the minister responsible — did he discuss this issue with anyone else on the executive council?

J. Horgan: So then the Premier and certainly the Minister of Community Services are included in the "none." Could the minister confirm that at Deputy Ministers Council the issue may well have been raised with the deputy to the Premier?

Hon. R. Coleman: My deputy advises me that there's a reasonable chance he would have advised the Deputy Ministers Council that something like this was in process. Whether the deputy to the Premier was at that particular council meeting, he doesn't know.

J. Horgan: Well, I'll take it that the deputy in the course of his responsibilities and activities would have attended the Deputy Ministers Council and would have raised this issue. Who was there is uncertain to him, but it was raised at that council?

J. Horgan: We were talking about the restrictions or the conditions on the deletion. I raised the question of compensation. During the course of discussions, did the ministry or any agent of the ministry do an assessment of the value of these lands?

Hon. R. Coleman: There was some assessment done. We don't have it here. We're going to attempt to get it.

J. Horgan: In the course of getting that assessment, was it with the eye to compensation to the Crown for the transfer of these lands?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're still trying to get that analysis, but I do know that in the decision document that was given to me, there was no recommendation to seek any financial accommodation from the company. The recommendation was to allow the deletion.

J. Horgan: Well, I have the decision document here, and I have to say that as much as I'm usually always quick to laud the good work of staff, I think they missed on the "moderate likelihood of public opposition" from communities, environmental groups and first nations. I think that was a big miss.

Again, I don't want to be critical of staff, but I think they underestimated significantly the opposition in my community, which is still reverberating to this day and which I suspect, based on decisions by the capital regional district, will be reverberating for perhaps another decade. I'm hopeful that the minister will reflect on that before he's quick to move in this direction again.

I also want to read from the decision document. It goes as follows: "The decision would allow WFP more flexibility regarding land use and business decisions regarding their private lands, including the ability to sell land to generate revenue." That's the first implication that's considered a positive implication in this briefing note.

I'm curious. In the discussions we've had on this file over the past 12 to 15 months, it seems to me that…. I've been led to believe that there was an expectation by government that forest activity would continue on these lands. What I've seen instead during that time is a real estate deal. I've seen a briefing note that says land sales are a primary interest.

The only financial consideration, according to this briefing note, is…. It says as follows: "Government access through the private lands" — this is with respect to the roadways — "will be secured at the government's cost of $300,000 to $350,000." Could the minister confirm that in fact we, the people of B.C., gave Western Forest Products cash to go with this land grab?

Hon. R. Coleman: The value of the roads that we kept access to is over $2 million. The cost that the member is referring to, I'm advised, would be the legal surveying costs to actually identify the roads so that they would be protected.

D. Routley: My first question to the minister is: did the government have to pay Western Forest Products for road access?

Hon. R. Coleman: We acquired the roads, and in order to exclude them from the private land deal, we had to survey them. So we paid to survey them to identify the lands that we excluded, which would identify the $2 million–plus worth of roads that we got.

D. Routley: During the restructuring negotiations for the Port Alice pulp mill, I understand that, essentially, a value was placed on the fibre supply lawsuit

against the government, owned by Western Forest Products, when the person who was arranging the financing for that deal essentially added over $100 million to the value of the deal, in the understanding that the lawsuit would be included. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: We think that the lawsuit the member is referring to goes back to the mid-1990s. A number of those lawsuits that were outstanding…. There were a number of historical lawsuits with some of these companies on the coast over different things. My understanding is that on the Bill 28 compensation they were settled.

D. Routley: That's distinctly against my understanding of what occurred, and I don't have time to dispute that or to pursue that very much further. But did any member of the minister's staff, including the deputy minister, make any communication to Western executives and encourage them to refuse to allow the lawsuits to be sold with other assets, in promise that they would be settled?

D. Routley: Did any member of the minister's staff, including at the deputy minister level, make any communication with the Western Forest Products executives in order to encourage them to refuse to allow the lawsuits to be sold along with other assets of the company during restructuring?

Hon. R. Coleman: My staff are asking for some clarification on the question, because they're not quite sure what you're asking. So are you asking, when Western bought Doman, whether there were lawsuits that transferred over and there was a value attached to those? Or are you asking whether Western did something with somebody else and they were encouraged not to do something? Or I guess what the member….

I don't know if you're asking if my staff gave free legal advice to Western with regards to something. They're confused as to what the question is, so it's a little difficult to answer.

D. Routley: In that case, was there any communication from any staff member of the ministry with Western encouraging them not to allow the lawsuits that were still in play after the restructuring of the company? Was there any communication from staff which encouraged or directed members of the board or executives of Western Forest Products not to allow the lawsuits to be sold along with the other assets that were sold during the restructuring, particularly including the Port Alice sawmill?

Hon. R. Coleman: My staff haven't given any advice to anybody as to what lawsuits they should or shouldn't pursue or what they should or shouldn't sell.

Frankly, they're still confused as to what the question is. Your question is that you think that one company was selling to another company and that there were some lawsuits involved with that company which would have transferred as a liability or a process to the other company when they bought it, and did my guy step in the middle and say: "Don't do that piece of your deal because we would rather you didn't"? Is that what we're trying to get to here?

B. Simpson: The member figures that that's the answer he was looking for, and if there's further clarification, we'll do so in writing.

I just want to tidy up Western Forest Products and move on to some other tenure issues. With respect to the letter sent to Western Forest Products, does it hold force of law if portions of these lands change hands? Does it hold force of law to the purchaser of the lands?

Hon. R. Coleman: We did consult with the Attorney General and legal counsel, and with regards to the log export piece, it does have force of law. With the other pieces which may have to do with the environment, Environment has its laws where archaeological sites would be covered under a specific legislation and that sort of thing, which are all force of law.

B. Simpson: I just want to be very clear on this because that is the only stipulation on land transfer — the log exports — and I was curious about why. In the case of Jordan River we have issues with respect to access for recreation and all sorts of things that were not part of what needed to be transferred on.

So I want to be clear that if Western Forest Products sells that land anywhere in the province within the next 36 months, the moratorium period, that only log exports are restricted. So wildlife habitat, other than existing regulations; the certification and the continuation of managing these as forests; the community watershed to be managed appropriately; the recreation; and access — all are not part of what is encumbering the next landowner.

Hon. R. Coleman: If it's an environmental issue with regards to water tables, setbacks and that sort of thing, the Ministry of Environment has the power. Each law…. The government, actually, is still binding on these.

With regards to what the member described for the access to recreation and, actually, the ISO…. My understanding is that that is something that binds this particular company but not necessarily the next one. That, by the way, is how…. Going back in history, my staff advise me that back in the '80s and '90s and 2000, that has always been the case with regards to any deletions.

B. Simpson: Of course, the major deletions have been given away since this government took power — without compensation, without consultation. In the 1990s, when there were some TimberWest lands given away, it was done with full consultation. It was done as

a compensatory act for public lands that were taken away through protected areas and parks and so on.

This is the only government that has failed to understand the social contract, that has failed to understand that the people of B.C. had a right to be consulted on this, that has failed to understand that the people of B.C. had a right to be compensated.

What the minister is effectively saying is…. When these companies flip those lands, then the minister's comments about "They will always be managed as forest lands" become moot. They can do whatever they want with it. Again, the benefits accrue to the company without any benefits to British Columbians.

So here's a question to the minister. Will Western Forest Products be receiving compensation from the Crown for the Haida land deal or the Maa-nulth treaty? Will compensation be given to Western Forest Products for any of the public land that's taken back for other land use agreements that are in the works?

Hon. R. Coleman: Section 60 of the Forest Act requires compensation for something like a park or a conservancy if it takes over 5 percent of the forest licence. That's in legislation. That's a requirement.

With regards to the Maa-nulth treaty, we don't have the details of the Maa-nulth here. It's about two years away, by the time it gets through the federal side. We passed it in British Columbia, but it has to go through the federal side before we'd actually get into those discussions, if it's actually taking more than 5 percent.

I'm not sure…. I'll get you the answer to whether it applies to the Forest Act with regards to the signing of the treaty, because that's not something that we're necessarily sure of.

B. Simpson: The reason for making the point…. I did ask the question during the debate on the Maa-nulth. TimberWest, certainly…. I believe Western Forest Products is one of them as well, but I could be wrong. These companies expect compensation when we take back public land rights. A tree farm licence was an agreement for private lands to come in, for exclusive rights over public lands.

What the minister failed to do was take advantage of the desire to release the private lands so that we didn't have to pay compensation for some of these other land deals that were going on. It could have been a quid pro quo. It could have been an opportunity to save the taxpayer a whole whack of money, and the minister chose not to exercise it. That's this minister as well as the minister previous to him.

But I want to move on. I know that first nations now have court cases against this pending. So we never learned the lesson from the Weyco deal in which the court ruled against the Crown and the minister in that case. But let's move on to Pope and Talbot. This one is rather interesting and intriguing. Quite frankly, I consider myself, next to the member for Nelson-Creston, somebody who can handle a lot of convoluted information all at once and try and make sense out of it. Quite frankly, on TFL 23 I can't figure out what's going on. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I want to put a little bit of history in here for context. When Pope and Talbot got TFL 23, they got it as a result of a bankruptcy of a previous company, Westar lumber. There was full consultation with the people of British Columbia in that area — something that this government doesn't seem to want to do on any of this — about how they wanted the lands that Westar had under public contract, under tenure and forest licences, apportioned and how they wanted Pope and Talbot to get it in a way to protect jobs, make sure contractors got paid, make sure mills ran.

It was an open, public process. There was a team of MLAs that went out and talked to the workers, talked to the contractors, talked to the communities. They structured the deal in a way that worked for Pope and Talbot and the people on the ground, something this minister refused to do when we challenged him to it in the House during question period.

But the critical aspect of that is that TFL 23 was partitioned. That's how we've got Revelstoke community forest in the northern end, and there was no valuation given for the possibility that the private lands and the tree farm licence would ever be released. So Pope and Talbot got tree farm licence 23 — the portion that they got — with no valuation for those private lands ever being released. They were not valued as private lands. They were valued for what they contributed to the annual allowable cut for TFL 23.

We now find ourselves in a situation where Pope and Talbot is doing the most bizarre thing that I can imagine. They're taking a legally constituted entity, TFL 23, and apparently, without the minister's permission, they have sold the public portion of those lands to Interfor and have sold the private portion of those lands to Ilkay and to a whole bunch of other developers.

So my question to the minister is this. How, under his watch, can a company, with impunity, separate out the private and the public lands of TFL 23 and sell them separately as if they were their own to sell without the minister's permission, when the minister said in that House on a number of occasions that he has not said that those lands can be released?

The lands are sold. The money is gone to Wells Fargo. I've got the affidavit in front of me. Ilkay development, the same one doing the Jordan River and the Western Forest Products, is supposed to be cutting a cheque to Wells Fargo as a result of the purchase. How can that transaction occur? The Interfor deal has closed, and the Interfor deal only includes the public lands of TFL 23. It does not include the private lands. How can that happen?

Hon. R. Coleman: The sale of these lands is subject to them being removed from the TFL. If somebody wants to send Wells Fargo a cheque without them being removed from the TFL, I would think that that subject hasn't been removed and the sale hasn't been made.

The reality is that the sale of TFL 23 to Interfor does not include the private land. That's correct. If the minister does not agree to amend the boundaries of the TFL to remove the private lands by the closing date for the sale of the TFL, the purchase will complete. However, Pope and Talbot will remain the owner of the private land and remain associated with the TFL.

It's only if we decide to allow the removal of the lands from the TFL that a sale could complete. That's my understanding of it. That's the explanation I have from the document provided to me by my staff.

Now, I haven't dealt with an application on this one. We did say to the communities up there that we would have a bit more of a broader community process if we got an application, that we would go to Castlegar and to the affected communities for input. Quite frankly, if I'm not mistaken, the only thing that we've started to do is some first nations consultation — if that.

B. Simpson: Is the minister saying that he has no application for the removal of private lands from TFL 23? I just want to be crystal clear. There is not an application, a letter or a request from Pope and Talbot to have these lands removed?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's be clear to the members opposite. What I said was…. Maybe Hansard, if it isn't correct…. This is what I meant to say. I do believe I said: there's no application in front of me at this stage, okay?

There is a request that staff of the ministry have been working with. They've had some discussions with local communities, and they're just coming through the first nations consultation. All of that would take place before a decision document came to me to deal with at all.

I've had no communication asking me to remove the lands. It would come to the ministry. Even if a letter did come to me, it would be referred to the ministry to do all the work prior to a decision document coming to the minister. So I do not have in front of me a document or a request or a briefing note with regards to TFL 23.

B. Simpson: I know the minister doesn't like this, but my sense is that Pope and Talbot was given the nod and the wink a long time ago on this. We've canvassed that at length.

When Pope and Talbot came to the minister and said that they were in serious trouble — although the minister represented that as that they had a good chat and that Pope and Talbot was going to be a great company…. They said to the minister that he was going to be in serious trouble back at the end of 2006, that part of what their game plan was, was releasing private lands. It says right in their shareholders' reports that they were going to attempt to do that. This minister admits in the public record that he's had conversations with Pope and Talbot all along here and, in fact, released a portion of TFL 23 during that same window.

What I fail to understand is the court request. The court shows that the deal is done February 13, 2008 — as far as the court is concerned, a transaction has occurred — and that that's a cash asset equivalent between Pope and Talbot and Ilkay for a portion of these private lands that are in tree farm licence 23.

The court says: "In aid and recognition any court tribunal regulatory administrative body having jurisdiction in Canada and the United States to give effect to this order and to assist the petitioners and its agents in carrying out the terms of this order…." So the court is saying to the minister, "Make this happen. Engage, and make it happen," because they want the cash to Wells Fargo. That's what the written order says.

My question to the minister is more deliberate. Can the minister — or maybe his staff, because the minister may not know this, to be fair…. Is there any other tree farm licence where the private lands and the public lands are held by two different companies? Because effectively, this is a single entity. So is there an example of this?

Hon. R. Coleman: We think there may be one other example, but we'd have to check it out for sure. The act does provide for this. The decision made was to try and move the Interfor side along because we felt that it was good if the company was going to buy the mills and have the fibre in that area of the province, that the potential down the road for the mill starting up and the jobs to be there was important.

We didn't feel we wanted to slow this down with regard to some other application with regards to private lands, which was not of any interest to Interfor who never had any interest in the private lands. That's basically how that came about.

I don't, frankly, care what the court document says. Unless I'm advised differently by legal counsel or something else or the Attorney General's office, my understanding is that I still have the statutory authority to make a decision whether lands get removed from this TFL. If that's the situation, it's not in front of me today.

Somebody that thinks they're buying a piece of property when there's a subject on it should actually wait until the subject gets removed before they decide to make the purchase. That's up to them. But there's nothing at my desk yet asking me to even remove these things.

I do know the work is going on, as you know. I told you that, etc. We'll just wait and see if it comes to my desk and what recommendations come with it. Whether to do or not to do — either/or.

B. Simpson: Again, the minister's lack of involvement in that whole Pope and Talbot scene astounds me and astounds all of us on this side. There was a day in this province when the Forests Minister actually rolled

up his sleeves and got involved in all of those things to make sure that the people of British Columbia were well served.

You've got a situation here where the people in that area have been asking this minister to come and consult with them. The people in that area have been asking for clarity. The logging contractors have been asking how they're going to get paid, because when these lands sell, they'll go to the American bankers. They're B.C. lands that were never valued for Pope and Talbot as development properties when we they got the original deal.

Now they're able to sell them for full developmental value. To do what? To pay the logging contractors in the Kootenays? No. To make sure that all of the people who provided the services to Pope and Talbot operations, who have accounts receivable in that area, get paid? No. To pay the bankers in the U.S. with B.C. lands that were never theirs as real estate land when the original deal was signed.

We have the massive…. Who owns the lands? What are the implications for Interfor? I think if you check with Interfor, the feedback we're getting is that now they're beginning to understand that some of those lands are log landings. They've got implications for operationalizing their lands.

With respect to the Interfor deal, I'm not quite sure what the minister needed to hurry all that up for. Interfor has already said that they're not planning on bringing the Grand Forks or the Castlegar mills up for quite some time because of market conditions. So there was space there.

If the minister had chosen to intervene, as we asked him to do last fall, this wouldn't be as botched as it is, and the people down there might have more clarity. We might also have a heck of a lot more clarity as to what Interfor's plans are, because that's the other side that's not known here. That whole area does not know what Interfor's plans are for wood and fibre supply in that area. They've got the Adams Lake mill that they want to get fibre to, which we'll canvass tomorrow, because of Kamloops.

My question to the minister is simple. Will the minister commit today to get into that area and hold those consultations now? Why do you have to wait until you get a piece of paper on your desk, which is what I understand the minister said? As soon as it's on his desk, we think we'll go and do some different consultations. Well, a little late.

Will the minister commit today to go in and find out what's going on in that area, find out what the issues are, find out what the questions are around the Interfor deal, around the private lands sales, around the future of the Grand Forks and the Castlegar mills and the Celgar mill and its pulp agreement with Interfor? Give the people a champion for their voice in all of these business transactions that occur behind boardroom doors.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you for that insulting little diatribe, which I'm going to ignore.

So this went to CCAA, which is bankruptcy. It's a federal statute that's governed by law. I know that the members thought I should actually show up in court and tell the lawyers what they were going to do.

We intervened. We actually had legal people there, as you recall, back at the very beginning — even when the member for West Kootenay–Boundary asked us to be there. We were there in the courts making sure these things were followed through.

If you want to make the assumption of what my statutory decision will be, make the bloody assumption. But I'm not making that assumption.

Hon. R. Coleman: My mother-in-law said it every day, so I didn't think it was….

Make the assumption, if you want. If Wells Fargo and whoever else wants to make the assumption that this land is coming out of the TFL when nobody has approved it, they can make the assumption.

I've told you that we're talking to the communities. I've told you that we're talking to first nations. My staff are doing that work. There's been no decision made on the private lands in TFL 23.

If you want to make the assumption that that's the decision we're going to make, you go right ahead and make the assumption. I haven't actually formed an opinion on this yet. If there are concerns in there that I'll hear with regards to landings and issues, that will come back to me during these discussions. We will take that into account as we go through it.

Before we even move, we will have a conversation with the member. We will have a conversation with Castlegar and the communities in there before we'll even make a move.

If that's not good enough for you, and if the fact that this is a conditional sale which says that something has to happen before the money is transcribed…. You've already got the money on a sale going somewhere, on a sale that cannot close today.

I know enough about real estate to know that a conditional sale with clauses is not a sale until the clauses are removed. Now, if the clause says that it has to be removed from a TFL, then they're a long way down the road from being able to close that sale, because there's nothing in front of me. There's no decision being made at this juncture today.

K. Conroy: I think the minister knows a lot about real estate, because he's been selling a lot of forest lands in the last couple of years. That's why, in fact, he does know a lot about real estate.

The minister said that he has been doing consultations with the people affected by this sale. I'm not aware of any. Even the first nations that have concerns have expressed concern about not having the proper consultation. I'd like to know when that has happened and how it's happening.

I also have real concerns about the fact that this sale has been completed — yes? What you're saying to me and what I'm hearing in this chamber is that Interfor is going to end up with the public lands. Pope and Talbot is still going to hold the private land. So it's going to be a bankrupt forest company. It's going to be bankrupt, not having any holdings in our area, and it's still going to own the lands if the minister doesn't allow those lands to be removed to a private dealer.

I want to put it on the record that I find it highly questionable that Ilkay Development, which has gone through this whole process with Jordan River, which has gone through the whole process with the Minister of Forests, doesn't know what it's doing. It doesn't know, in fact, how it can get private lands removed from a TFL.

It seems preposterous that a company like that would go through this whole — what would you say it was? — charade and put millions of dollars as an offer on a piece of land and not think that they were going to close the deal when they've already been through the whole rigmarole with Jordan lands.

There is a disconnect there. It's a real concern for the community, and it's a concern, I think, for the people that work in those mills, and the mills are shut down. Interfor is concerned, but they're concerned not only about market conditions. They're also concerned about their fibre. The fibre up there comes from the lake, and the lands on the lake are the ones that are being sold off.

I have a real concern about some of the minister's comments. I just want to know why he would think to go in to do consultations after the fact and not be up there before the deal was closed and to actually be talking to Interfor. It's my understanding that it would make that mill a lot more viable if they had those private lands, as Pope and Talbot got them back in the early '90s.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't understand that Interfor wanted those lands. If they did, I don't know why they wouldn't have petitioned the court and offered to take the lands.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, then again, let's just repeat it, because I want your constituents to hear this — okay? I want you to repeat this to your constituents.

Let's be honest. They have started the consultation with first nations. If first nations say they aren't being spoken to, then you should advise my deputy which one is saying that they are not being spoken to, because that process has started. Some of the communities have been spoken to. I have said that as we come through this, we will also come to the communities to talk about this exclusion, long before it's ever going to be finalized, with the communities themselves and those that are affected.

However, the sale of the land is subject to removal from the TFL, so tell your constituents that there may be something in the courts that says somebody has got an offer to buy some land. If they're never removed from the TFL, the sale will not go through.

Now, that means that it reverts back to the courts. It reverts back to the courts and back to the original owner, which is Pope and Talbot. In that case, they can sit there as lands in a TFL forever, for that matter, depending on whether the exclusion is there.

So if we don't agree to amend the boundaries of the TFL to remove the private lands by the closing date of the sale of the TFL, the purchase just can't happen — right? The reality is that there is going to be a whole lot more discussion about those private lands in TFL 23 before anything happens with them. I can guarantee you that.

B. Simpson: A quick question for clarification. One of the points we have made throughout all of this is that we have not seen a submission on the part of the Crown to the court indicating that those lands are encumbered. As a consequence, the terms of the deal for the lands by the court make no notice of an encumbrance against them — that they have to be released, that anything has to happen to them. It says: "The execution of the sale agreements hereby authorize and approve…."

So let's cut through this. We're going to close here shortly, but tomorrow morning I would like us to see on the public record where the Crown has indicated to the court that these lands are encumbered. Pope and Talbot is reporting them as cash assets. That's how they're reported in their affidavit. They do not report any encumbrance whatsoever. They do not report that they need the approval of the minister to sell them, so the court understands them as cash assets that Pope and Talbot has every right to sell.

Let's clarify this tomorrow morning, and if the minister could direct his staff to bring in here where we have clarified that for the court and where in any of the court proceedings — there are a number of them, and I've gone through most of them — there is any notification that these sales are encumbered in any way.

Hon. R. Coleman: They're not out of the TFL. I would think that's an encumbrance. They're not coming out of the TFL unless the minister signs a statutory document to say so. And that's not in front of the minister.

Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask 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.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.


	YEAS — 41

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Taylor	Bond
Hansen	Abbott	Penner
Neufeld	Coleman	Hogg
Sultan	Lekstrom	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 29

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Ralston
B. Simpson	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Routley	Fraser
Horgan	Dix	Trevena
Bains	Robertson	Karagianis
Evans	Austin	Chudnovsky
Chouhan	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy