Hansard — Tuesday, May 27, 2008 a.m.

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


Second Reading of Bills		12937
	Election Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 42) (continued)
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. M. de Jong
	C. Trevena
	S. Simpson
	J. Horgan
	On the amendment
	J. Horgan
	D. Chudnovsky
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. C. Richmond
	N. Macdonald

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		12952
	Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)
	C. James
	Hon. G. Campbell

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading on Bill 42 and in Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued discussion of the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to engage in the debate around Bill 42, which is a fairly significant modernization of the Election Act — 79 sections in total. The bill covers a variety of areas.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, just a second. Actually, when we adjourned debate before, the member for New Westminster had the floor.

C. Puchmayr: He had a bit of an advantage on me because he was already on his feet. Thank you to the hon. House Leader for understanding the error of his ways.

To continue with my debate on Bill 42, certainly this bill causes great concern. It certainly causes great concern to this side of the House and, from what I've read in the newspapers, possibly to some members of the other side of the House as well. I will get into that a little bit later in my debate when I will quote the hon. Attorney General.

Legislation that prohibits someone who is homeless from the ability to exercise their democratic right to vote is something that has to be seriously looked at in this country.

If you look at the bill quite closely, you see that the requirements for those who are homeless….

C. Puchmayr: I think I hear a member on the other side saying that it doesn't. It shows me that there is some concern on the other side even with the understanding of this bill.

Bill 42 states that an applicant may produce, to an election official, a document issued by the government of British Columbia or Canada that contains the applicant's name and photograph and place of residence.

So if last night you slept at shelter A, tonight you may get a bed at shelter B. The following night you may be sleeping under the Pattullo Bridge. Where is the document that that is your residence? A homeless person doesn't have a residence. A homeless person may be in a shelter, may be on a mat in the basement of a church one day and may be at a different venue the next day and may be at the Salvation Army in New Westminster the next day.

So that homeless person in my community will not have an address that will be shown on a piece of picture ID. The picture identification, whether it's federal identification or provincial identification, asks to have the place of residence on that document. That place of residence isn't something that someone is going to go out and have made every morning when they get up — run down and spend the $15 or $20 to make up a piece of ID.

This bill imposes something that certainly sends a shudder through anyone who believes in true and complete democracy in this country. I am extremely concerned that we're engaging in this type of activity.

When you look at the last election results, there was a difference of about 6,000 votes between us being in the opposition and the government forming government. The homeless count that was recently engaged in saw, again, a drastic increase in the homeless population in British Columbia. Some of the figures have it around 15,000 people.

So if we're looking at 15,000 people that will not have the ability to participate in a democratic society — people that are born in Canada or have become Canadian citizens or in some cases seniors that have lived through the Depression, such as the case of Donald Buchanan….

He arrived at a Victoria homeless shelter one cold night in April, and it has been rather cold in April lately. He's 81 years old. He survived the Great Depression, and now suddenly he's told: "You can't vote in the next provincial election."

An 81-year-old senior who for whatever reasons of misfortune is now a homeless senior wants to understand why he cannot go down to the ballot box and cast a ballot after contributing to the country for most of his life, after surviving the Great Depression. Suddenly now, with this legislation and with the stroke of a pen, he's not able to cast his ballot. That's something to think about.

The Great Depression. Hundreds of thousands of people throughout North America were homeless. They were moving from town to town, looking for work, trying to find jobs. It's kind of like what the people in Prince George and Mackenzie are doing now — going to Alberta, looking for jobs, moving around trying to find employment.

They're still citizens. They should still have the right to exercise their democratic right. They should still be

able to go to the ballot box and vote for their choice of candidate, and that isn't happening under this legislation.

I predict that there will be a challenge to this legislation, just as there was a challenge to Bill 29 when this government decided…. Contrary to what their legal advice was, contrary to what was moral and right, contrary to contract law, they literally tore up a collective agreement and thought that they could get away with it. The turmoil and the family upheaval that that caused to families in communities when they lost their jobs….

C. Puchmayr: I am speaking in relevance, because I'm speaking about an issue that could possibly appear before the Supreme Court of Canada. I'm giving a parallel of a constitutional challenge to something that this government has introduced that is illegal. I predict that in the same context as Bill 29, this challenge will also happen.

Unfortunately, by the time a matter such as this comes before the Supreme Court of Canada, there is a considerable amount of time that passes. If you look at the time lines of the Bill 29 dispute and you factor in those same time lines to this matter, there's a good chance that the election will have taken place. The 16,000 — or even 16,000-plus, maybe, at that time — homeless will not have been able to exercise their democratic right. The courts may rule that that is unconstitutional, but will they go far enough to rule that an election has to be held again? That, looking at jurisprudence, is probably doubtful.

The impact will have been made. The courts could very well overturn this legislation, but it will be too late. It will be too late for the thousands of people that are homeless. A lot of them are homeless not for reasons that they just want to be homeless. That used to be what you heard from people — that people want to be homeless, that they want to live under a bridge. When people are homeless, there's a reason for that.

Sometimes I see them in my office. They come in, and they missed the IQ test for disability by one point. "No, you don't have a disability. You don't qualify for any special assistance." Or another case, where people come into the Ministry of Income Assistance office…. When they had the computer kiosk network, people would come in there and not be able to manoeuvre through the technicalities of even applying for assistance. They would end up walking out the door in frustration.

This is very concerning. I think the Attorney General made some comments about how it wasn't his law, that he was merely quarterbacking it. Well, I'll tell you, when you grab onto the fabric of caustic that is on the other side, they're all tainted with that. This is their law. Whether the Attorney General brings it in or whether it's directed from one of those 217 advisers that now work out of the Premier's office, it is their law.

It is this government's law that is denying homeless people the right to vote. It's as much the Attorney General's law as it is the House Speaker's law, as it is the Minister of Income Assistance's law, as it is the Minister of Forests's law. It is their law. It is their law that is preventing homeless people from exercising their democratic rights.

Just recently we worked on some legislation to give reservists the right, when they come back into Canada, to have their jobs protected for them. You know, what concerns me is that the last 60 reservists that we sent out of my community to go overseas to Afghanistan…. When they left, homeless people could vote and had a democratic right. They left to go to another country to establish democracy. When they come back, they'll see that there was another chip taken out of democracy in our own country, in our own province.

That is extremely troubling. I would certainly encourage the government to look at this legislation, to go back to the drawing board, to impose legislation that is fair and democratic to all people in British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in debate on Bill 42, which is an important statutory instrument. It is one that is designed to modernize the B.C. Election Act, a statute that last received any sort of comprehensive review in 1995. In the 79 sections that comprise this bill a range of issues is canvassed: the appointment of election officials, nomination periods for candidates, grounds for recounts in electoral districts, clarity on disclosure rules and clarifying the rights of renters to participate fully in the electoral process.

I feel compelled to make the observation at this point, following in the footsteps of the previous hon. member, that the suggestion or allegation that this represents any sort of attempt to disenfranchise people is patently incorrect. That is false. There is an attempt here, on the strength of recommendations set out by the Chief Electoral Officer, to clarify the rules by which people can present themselves at the polling station to exercise their democratic right.

The suggestion that people who find themselves temporarily dislocated will be precluded from exercising that right is incorrect. There are mechanisms in place whereby even people who find themselves in those unfortunate circumstances are in a position to acquire temporary identification, utilize an address and exercise their democratic right.

The notion, however, that people should be in a position to identify who they are as a prerequisite to exercising their democratic rights at the polling station is a sound one and one that the Chief Electoral Officer takes very seriously — and, I think, properly so. I felt compelled to disabuse anyone that may be of the view that this represents any kind of an attempt to disenfranchise people. That is simply not true.

It is true, however, that the bill has attracted a significant amount of attention. That's good, because we're dealing with principles here that go to the heart of our democratic institutions — that is, the operation of elections within the province of British Columbia.

It is true that people have focused, I think it's fair to say, on those provisions of the bill — those provisions

within its 79 sections — that address the issue of advertising and, most particularly, third-party advertising and third-party spending limits.

I think it's equally fair to say that people have expressed some concerns around those provisions. That's okay. In fact, that's good, because these are fundamentally important rights. People should be and deserve to be vigilant when measures are introduced that would affect the exercise of those rights. That's a good thing.

The concerns that have been articulated by some members in this House and by others outside of this House have focused in on that particular issue — the restrictions that this bill would impose on advertising and spending in the lead-up to a general election. But I think that insofar as I and the government welcome that debate and applaud those who are vigilant about drawing attention to the exercise of those rights, the debate needs to be placed within the proper context.

The Supreme Court of Canada has dealt with the issue of third-party spending limits, and it has endorsed the principle of having such limits. In fact, my recollection of the decision is that the Supreme Court of Canada went even further and suggested that the absence of some measure of regulation might, in and of itself, lead to inequalities or lead to a situation in which improper or unfair influences were being brought to bear on political debate and on the outcome of elections.

Similarly, the notion that limits would be placed on candidates and political parties in the spending they are permitted to do in support of their efforts to achieve political office is also something that has been endorsed. I think it's broadly accepted by society now that there would be limitations in place. They are defined both federally and provincially, and we're at a stage now where I don't think people question the wisdom of bringing a measure of equity to the playing field upon which political contests are waged.

If that is so…. I would submit and suggest to members that it is — that spending limits for both political parties and candidates are deeply rooted and entrenched legislatively but also, in terms of society, more broadly. The Supreme Court of Canada has pronounced its views with respect to third-party participation and the applicability of some limitation around that. It seems to me that there is one additional factor, one additional variable, that is relevant to this discussion and that is the introduction, as we have in this province, of a fixed election date. This bill recognizes that fixed election date.

I should say that the Chief Electoral Officer himself, in his 2006 report from which the vast majority of the proposed amendments in this bill are taken, addressed the question of a fixed election date on page 29 under the heading "Impact of fixed election date on election advertising and expense limits." The Chief Electoral Officer made the observation that the establishment of fixed dates for general elections has raised the issue about whether or not there would be wisdom in moving back from that election date.

In effect, could the purpose behind spending limits that exist during the writ period be frustrated if there were no regulation at all in the period immediately preceding the campaign? Within his report he makes the observation that there is some validity to that concern that has been expressed since the introduction of a fixed election date — which, by the way, I am both very supportive of and proud to have been the member of a government who made that pledge and followed through on that pledge. Now we see other jurisdictions in the country following British Columbia's lead.

I think elections shouldn't be about trickery. The practice of manipulating when elections are going to be held and creating ideal circumstances in the way that governments historically have — and continue, I suppose, to do — in this country is unfortunate, I think. Happily, in British Columbia that is no longer the case, and we have the fixed election date. But as the Chief Electoral Officer has said, that raises questions about whether or not the regulations that apply to spending need to be reconsidered in light of that change.

The challenge, then, is to find balance if we are going to take that step, to ascertain how to balance those various issues. I think it's fair to say that a number of people — I think a goodly number of people — are concerned that the bill in its form before the House now…. They are concerned that the government hasn't found that balance, that the 120 days — during which there isn't a ban but there are limitations placed on the ability people have, third parties have, to participate in the electoral process, to discuss issues, to highlight issues and to highlight their preferences — is perhaps too long.

To put it bluntly, upon reflection, the government agrees. The government thinks that 120 days is too long, and that's why the Attorney General has tabled amendments. I thought, actually, that the member who spoke previously would take advantage of the opportunity to comment on those amendments and give us an indication of how he, at least, felt about them. They are standing in the name of the Attorney General on the order paper. They would reduce that period from 120 days to 60 days, Madam Speaker.

I think that does strike a balance. I think that the amendments proposed by the Attorney General to reduce the period of time during which there would be limitations on spending by candidates, political parties and third parties from 120 days to 60 days…. It's the right thing to do.

If I can take a moment to further describe the specific amendments that are standing in the name of the Attorney General on the order paper. We are certainly, through these amendments, maintaining our commitment to having in place a spending regime for political parties, candidates and third parties that is fair and effective.

I should point out to all members, as they examine the proposed amendments, that there will be no change to the amount candidates and third parties may spend on election advertising during this 60-day pre-campaign period and the campaign period itself. So though the

amount of time has been reduced, the amount of money that can be spent remains the same during that period.

However, I do want to point out to members that in recognition of the shorter pre-campaign period during which regulations will be in effect, the amendment does provide for a reduction in the amount that political parties may spend. In the original bill, during the 120-day period the amount was $2.2 million. Having reduced that period to 60 days, the amendment proposes a reduction in the amount that political parties can spend, also by half, to $1.1 million.

Again, I alert members to the provisions of the amendment that may clear the amount for individual candidates. It remains unchanged for the now 60-day period at $70,000. The amendments also contain a provision, a section (3.1), to make it clear and to remove any ambiguity or uncertainty that anything in the act would constrain government or all Members of this Legislative Assembly from carrying out their necessary duties and functions. This is designed to ensure that it is clear that government and MLAs can continue to work and communicate with the public as necessary in the conduct of their work and duties.

Madam Speaker, I began by observing that the principles addressed in this legislation are important. They go to the heart and the essence of our democratic institutions — that is, the process we follow by which people are elected to this chamber. They are worthy of close scrutiny and careful consideration.

I have heard some of the concerns expressed by members in this debate. Some, I would suggest, are manufactured. Others I think represent legitimate expressions of concern. Today the Attorney General and the government have tried to address what I think has become the focus of much of the concern that has been articulated around the bill.

We do have an opportunity to investigate and to peruse these sections, particularly some that have drawn more attention, in more detail at the committee stage of the bill. It would be at that point that the Attorney General would obviously call the amendments that stand in his name on the order paper.

I hope we get that chance. I hope, on the strength of the amendments that have been tabled and that appear on the order paper, that the opposition will welcome the opportunity to question, to critique those changes. The place to do that, of course, will be in committee, and I hope we get that chance. But that will be for the opposition to decide.

I'm hopeful that following second reading debate — that there will be a conclusion to second reading debate — the discussion can move into committee, where we can examine in greater detail some of the issues that have engaged the attention not just of members of this House but of the broader public as well.

These are important matters. They do go to the heart of our electoral process. The government is committed to the notion of promoting participation, committed to the objective of securing a fair and reasonable balance between the principles that lie at the heart of our Elections Act. I believe that this bill, combined with the amendments that the Attorney General has tabled and would seek to call during the committee stage, do represent that fair balance.

C. Trevena: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be talking about Bill 42. We aren't yet talking about the amendments, although the Government House Leader did discuss in some detail the amendments. We, too, would like to have the opportunity to fully discuss this in committee stage. We are hopeful that we will be able to do so, but we are very limited in time now and are seeing many, many bills being pushed through. We are not being given the full opportunity for debate.

This really is very disturbing. As the Government House Leader talked about, he started off that we're talking about principles that are at the heart of our democratic institutions. We're talking about elections, how elections are governed, and we're talking in greater levels on what is happening with the legislation.

We are brought here to discuss legislation, debate legislation and, on the opposition side, to criticize legislation, but we aren't really being given the opportunity to do that. We are seeing a number of bills forced through, and at the end of business on Thursday, no matter where we are, everything will be pushed through.

So the amendment that the Attorney has brought in, which cuts the level down from 120 days to 60 days, doesn't deal with many of our objections to this bill in whole. When we get the opportunity to debate the amendment…. If we got the opportunity to debate the amendment — which is highly unlikely because, as I say, we now have two and a half days to deal with much legislation — we would still be opposing the amendment, because it still puts a limit on freedom of speech.

I think that we're all slightly troubled. We are talking about the democratic process, and part of the democratic process is allowing people to participate and encouraging people to participate. I think we are troubled, all of us, about money and politics — mixing the two. It's very difficult.

That's why we on this side of the House have put forward a bill which would take money out of politics and make sure that when we come to campaigning, when we come to donations for political parties, it comes down to the individual. It isn't businesses supporting; it isn't labour supporting. It's individuals supporting.

We believe that there should be a very lively debate and that people should be engaged in that debate. I think one of the most troubling things we see is that in our democratic process, people feel disengaged. We have fixed election dates. You know, it's going to be very interesting to see, as we go into our second fixed election, whether people become more engaged as we get close to the date or whether they just look at us as irrelevant and don't really think that this political process is worthy.

By restricting the amount of involvement that third parties can have in that debate, whether it is 60 days or

120 days, it is going to make people very disillusioned. It's going to make people feel further disenfranchised.

I've worked in various places and worked overseas at places where there have been first elections, and it's fabulous to see people's engagement. People really want to get involved. They want to take their right. They want to go and vote. They want to have their opportunity to stand up and literally be counted. They'll line up at the ballot boxes for hours so that they have that right. Other parties…. There'll be healthy, lively debate across a province, across a country, because people are engaged. They feel that the democratic process is worthy of debate, is a fundamental right, is something that they want to become involved with, and they're encouraged to do so.

So I'm very, very saddened that I have to stand in this House and be discussing something that is going to take away from the people of British Columbia the right to have a broad debate, at the moment with the bill as it stands, 120 days before an election; with the Attorney's amendment, 60 days. It's taking away the right for them to have that full debate, the full discussion of issues, the full critique, which sometimes we won't get in this House, whether it is because of the structure of the House or because we are talking about party policies.

We're very much talking about our party policies, yet third parties are often non-partisan. We can talk about nurses, about teachers, about other groups who are not partisan, but they have a voice, and they want to be able to express their opinions. Whether we are looking at this bill, which is 120 days, or an amendment — which, as we all in this House know, we'll never get the opportunity to debate — to 60 days, for that length of time people will not be able to participate in the debate. They will not be able to get their voice heard across the province.

This has been described as a gag law. I know that one organization — I think it's the Canadian Union of Public Employees — has now got a campaign which is called "Just shut up," because that's what they see is happening — that they are being told to shut up. They're being told that their opinions don't matter, their involvement doesn't matter and that they cannot participate in the debate.

I know that the Attorney doesn't see this as a gag law and has been quoted as saying: "There's been an overreaction to it in my view. I don't see this as a gag law. I don't see this as a huge assault on the freedom of expression…or any of those freedoms that we cherish."

Well, I think that this side of the House does disagree with him. It is a gag law. It does limit the freedom of expression. It does mean that people who have an interest in particular issues won't be able to talk about them. For 60 days before an election, they won't be able to talk about them. It is extremely troubling that we can have people who have a view on an issue and aren't able to participate in the debate.

We do need to get people engaged, and we need to keep people engaged. There is obviously an issue, and I know the Attorney has talked about it — the issue of money in politics and wanting to prevent our going to the American-style political system, wanting to make sure that we do try and limit that amount of involvement of paid advertising.

I would hope that everybody in this House would not want us to go down that road where the only access that people have is through money, through television. But there is a difference in what we see in Canada and what we've seen in B.C. — which is informed, involved participation — compared to having electioneering solely through television, electioneering all through television. I think this bill won't be dealing with that. It really doesn't deal with that.

There is also, obviously, the irony that we have the government that is putting forward this bill where the now Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, was very opposed to such a law. He spoke out very much against a gag law at that stage and is now quite complacently accepting that we should have a 60-day or 120-day, as put down in this bill, ban on participation.

If you're looking at 60 days, now that we have the fixed election dates, that's going to take us back to two months before an election. Our next election, as I think everybody in the House is well aware, is less than a year away. It's May 12, 2009, which means 60 days before that would stop any organization, any third party, from organizing some informed debate about it and paying for that debate about it.

So take it back from May. It takes us back to March, which means that we'll come back to this House in the beginning of February, and we'll have the budget. We'll have maybe two to three weeks where there can be a broad discussion from organizations that might have real concerns about it, and then that's it. Then they'll be told to shut up. So you get two or three weeks. That cannot be healthy. It cannot be a healthy part of the democratic process.

We want to make sure that people are involved and are engaged. If you bring it down to that level, it means that the debate isn't there. As the Government House Leader was discussing, we now have a fixed election date, which means that for every three out of four-year cycles, the debate on those very fundamental issues — the throne speech and the budget speech — will have a limited debate. That is something that we on this side of the House are seriously worried about.

As I say, while we would like to see a lot less money involved in politics and going back down to individuals being the main donors for political parties…. The Leader of the Opposition actually tabled in this House yesterday a bill which would fundamentally change the election financing and fundamentally change the way we do election funding and party funding. That, I think, really is the way that we need to go forward.

Rather than going forward on this, which is restricting speech, basically what the Leader of the Opposition has been putting forward is a bill which would clean up the financial confusion — to put it mildly — about who is supporting which party and how that money is channelled.

Instead, we see this hastily…. I say it's a hastily constructed bill. This bill was tabled — what? — last

month. It was tabled this session. Already we have very lengthy, very detailed amendments. As the Government House Leader mentioned, we're still hoping that the Attorney will be able to table the amendments so that we can also fully discuss the amendments.

We have the Election Amendment Act, 2008 — Bill 42 — tabled in this House. Within a few weeks we get the amendments to the bill tabled, which is why I believe this is very hastily constructed. It's also hastily constructed because there are not just the 120 days or 60 days issue on whether third parties can get involved and can really participate in the debate and can just get their point of view out, but also because one of the issues is that the limits apply to an issue with a registered political party or a candidate.

On this side of the House there has been legal opinion taken, and the legal opinion points out that this is actually a fatal flaw in the bill itself. It isn't addressed, as I understand it, in the amendment, because we don't have candidates until the writ is dropped. So at any length of time under this bill or under the amendment, the only time we actually have the candidate is when the writ is dropped.

I'm concerned that we are debating a bill that is possibly so flawed and is likely to be challenged. It would be better just to say: "Okay, we've tabled a bill. We did it too quickly." If the government had the courage to say: "We made some mistakes. We tabled the bill too quickly. We haven't thought it all out. You're right. There are problems…."

Whether or not the problems are around the length of time or the amount of money that a third party can get involved or whether or not it's about the candidates or, as other of my colleagues have been discussing, about the issue that this bill effectively means that people who are homeless will not be able to register to vote…. We are discriminating against a growing number of our people in B.C. — sadly, a growing number of people in B.C.

If the government had just said, "Okay, we need to take this off, and we need to rethink it," maybe that would have been a better idea. Instead we get a hastily tabled bill with amendments which again, I think, are hastily tabled. They're here. We'll not get the opportunity to fully discuss the amendments, if at all, because of the tight time frame. Still, we're facing the possibility that this bill will be challenged in the courts.

I think if the Attorney was really concerned about ensuring that the freedoms — as he says, "the freedoms we cherish" — are properly looked after, he would say that now it's time. "Let's just pull the bill. We'll rework it."

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. So we are going to go through the issue of the bill being tabled, the amendments going through without us having a debate on Thursday afternoon and then third parties challenging this in the courts, as I'm sure they will do.

We have the Civil Liberties Association concerned about it. I know a lot of individuals are concerned about it. I don't know about the government's inboxes, but my inbox has had many, many letters that are very concerned about it. We've had labour organizations concerned about it.

People want and have the right to participate. Whether or not we're looking at how much money they can spend to participate is a different issue from allowing them to participate at all. What this is doing, by putting a time limit on, is restricting their ability to participate.

The other issue in this bill that isn't dealt with in the amendment is the issue of whether people who are homeless will be able to register to vote and how they'll be able to do that.

I was mentioning at the beginning of my remarks about engagement of people and how we're going to get people involved and how we're going to ensure that we have not just a healthy debate but people exercising their right to vote.

The exercising of the right to vote is one of the treasures that we have in a democratic system. Every four years for a provincial election, every three years municipally and federally, we have the right to vote. We as residents, as citizens of this province and this country, have that right to say: "This is how I want to be governed. This is how I want to exercise my political judgment. This is how I want to ensure that we do have a good future for me, for my children, for my neighbours."

What this bill does is prevent many people from having that right. To take that right away in a democratic society is appalling. It is absolutely appalling to effectively disenfranchise people because they are homeless.

The reason people are homeless is not by choice. It is often a result because there has been mental illness, mental health issues. It is often because of poverty issues, because of this government's policies. This government's policies have driven people into the streets, have driven people into sleeping in their cars or staying with family or friends or couch-surfing, have exponentially increased the number of homeless.

Another government policy is going to say: "We've done that to you. We've taken away your dignity. We've left you without anything. We've left you without shelter. Now we're going to take away your right to vote, your right to have a say in your future. We're going to take it away because you're homeless. We've made you homeless, but sorry. Go away. You're not important."

I think that that is really one of the most awful things this government could do — take away the right to vote. Saying to people: "You're not going to have the ID necessary to vote. That's it. You don't have the ID. You can't do it."

Only by exercising their vote can people make change in their lives. Maybe people would continue voting for this government. Who knows? I believe that many wouldn't, but it's that right in a democratic society to exercise your voice through the ballot box. It's your right to say, "This is what I want; this is what I want for me; this is what I want for my community," and to have that right in the ballot box. It's as important as the greater freedom of expression that this bill also squashes.

We do live in a democracy still. We live in a parliamentary democracy where we are supposed to be able to have debates and have discussion and be able to question and be able to analyze, to sit in committee, to go through line by line, to have these debates where everyone is engaged in what everyone else is talking about and we are involved, to be able to question.

The foundations for a democratic system are the freedom of expression and the right to vote. Bill 42 damages both. That is why we on this side of the House are fundamentally opposed to Bill 42 and why we will not be voting for it.

S. Simpson: While I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 42, the Election Amendment Act, 2008 — or, as it's more accurately known, the election gag law — I find it unfortunate that I need to join this debate and that the government didn't see fit, rather than introducing some half-measure amendments today, to have instead just withdrawn the bill and said: "This is bad legislation. We made a mistake. We're taking it off the table, and we'll come back and have a full discussion at some time in the future, probably after the next election, about the whole question of the electoral process."

But that's not what the government chose to do today. So we are, in fact, debating Bill 42. That is the piece of legislation that we'll be talking about for the next couple of days, I'm sure, before the government rams it through with closure.

What Bill 42 does, essentially…. It is, to say the least, insidious legislation. It is legislation that undermines the right of debate. It is legislation that undermines free speech, and it is legislation that essentially takes the right to vote away from tens of thousands of our most vulnerable citizens in British Columbia. That's the result of Bill 42.

It's a piece of legislation that anybody who calls themselves a democrat should be ashamed of, and that certainly includes every member on the government side of the House. They should all be ashamed that they will be supporting this bill.

They support this bill even though what it does is…. It says that, in fact, for 120 days before the election period, or including the election period — for five months — they are prepared to shut down, essentially, the right of people to exercise their right to free speech.

We now know, of course, that the Attorney General, after the massive wave of opposition to this bill — justified opposition, not just from one sector of society but from across society, who have rejected the principle of this bill…. The Attorney General, of course, I guess somewhat in the middle of the cabinet panic over having found themselves in this place, has scrambled into the House today, to move that from 120 days to 60 days in terms of the gag aspect of this, or what is 90 days from the election period. So they've moved it back to there.

Now, I would point out that that still essentially captures — because we're looking at an election in May — the budget period. It captures the throne speech. It captures most of the spring session of the Legislature.

So in large part, what the government is saying is that those organizations that may want to advertise a position, buy media time to talk about what the government does or doesn't put in its budget, for example…. Well, they will have serious limitations put on them as to their ability to do that. If that's not a gag law, then I don't know what is.

They also have, with this piece of legislation, compromised the right to vote for at least 15,000 homeless people in this province and probably for tens of thousands of others who are transient in terms of how they survive day to day. They have done that by making it much, much more difficult for people to be able to get registered and have the right to vote. This at a time when the government should be doing exactly the opposite — in fact, finding ways to open up opportunities for those people.

As some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, in our society…. We should be looking for ways to encourage them to buy in. We should be looking for ways to encourage them to participate in this process. We should be looking for ways for them to have a voice. Part of that voice is their ability to cast their vote and participate in choosing the people who will represent them.

What this legislation, what Bill 42 has done…. It has severely limited and restricted that ability. I would note that in the amendments that the Attorney General has brought for Bill 42 and that would come in committee stage, if we ever get to committee stage…. Well, those amendments are silent on the question of those folks. As we heard the Government House Leader, in his comments today…. He seemed to dismiss this group and say: "It will all be taken care of. They have lots of opportunity."

I don't accept that argument from the Government House Leader. I think it's just trying to get around a situation that's a bad situation.

We have this situation where we have this piece of legislation that I believe undermines the democratic processes. The challenge with this, of course, is that the government tries to do this and tries to use the Chief Electoral Officer to defend their position. And they try to use the Chief Electoral Officer as the reason that they can do this, because for some reason they're trying to make a claim that the Chief Electoral Officer in some way embraces these changes.

That's simply not true. There is no evidence to suggest that. We didn't see the Chief Electoral Officer recommending making it more difficult for homeless people to vote. What we saw was exactly the opposite: the Chief Electoral Officer talking about ways to ease that registration and to make it easier for homeless people to have the opportunity to be enfranchised — a group of people who are vulnerable, who are disenfranchised in many, many aspects of their lives, in many aspects of our society.

There is an opportunity here to ensure that at least in this one fundamental democratic area, the right to vote, we would be opening more doors, encouraging

But that's not what this does, and the Chief Electoral Officer does not embrace this. There's nowhere where I've seen the Chief Electoral Officer standing up saying that this is a good idea, yet the government would have us believe that that is in fact what's occurring, and it's not occurring.

Hon. Speaker, we didn't see the Chief Electoral Officer recommending essentially gagging people for what is four months — or five months, if you include the election period — to essentially say that back into the previous calendar year, for that matter, people will be kept silent, essentially, on many aspects of this, and severely limiting and restricting people's ability to comment.

Now, as I said, the government has, in a bit of a panic, scrambled together this cutting in half the period for the gag legislation. Of course, that doesn't change the constitutionality of this, and I still believe that what we will see is a constitutional challenge to this, a challenge that, as the Attorney General would say, would be before the courts at some point, and the courts will decide.

I am certainly confident, from all the evidence that we've seen, that the courts will do the right thing and strike down this legislation as fundamentally unconstitutional in the way that they have struck down other laws of this government for being unconstitutional. I didn't see or hear the Chief Electoral Officer suggesting for one minute that we should be putting gag laws in place to limit the ability of people to have their say.

What I didn't hear, as well, was the Chief Electoral Officer talking about the need to deal with these matters in this way. What I did hear the Chief Electoral Officer talking about…. I was looking through the service plan for Elections B.C. for '08-09 through 2010-11. When I looked through the goals, objectives, strategies and performance measures of the service plan and the comments of the Chief Electoral Officer on these…. He talks in goal 3 about providing an inclusive and accessible electoral process. I think that's a laudable goal, and that's a goal that certainly everybody who comes to this place because of that electoral process should be looking to support and to defend.

In the strategies that the Chief Electoral Officer speaks about, he says: "Elections B.C. intends to consult with voters and other clients to identify ways to improve their experience with the electoral process." Well, hon. Speaker, I don't think that many voters were consulted before Bill 42 came in. I'm sure that not many voters were asked whether they thought that we should cut homeless people off from having a capacity to vote, or at least making it much more challenging for them to be able to vote.

I don't think many voters were spoken to about putting an additional four months of restrictions on freedom of speech in this province. I certainly didn't hear any voters coming to me and saying: "That's a fabulous idea; that's a great idea. We should be doing that." But I'm sure the Attorney General and no one else in this government took the time to speak to any voters about this.

What they're doing is looking at a political situation where they have a sense of entitlement about their role as government. They have a sense of entitlement about their right to govern, whether it's in the best interests or desire of British Columbians. They will manipulate the law in any way they can to help that political advantage. That's what this is about — this government trying to advance political advantage at the expense of democracy.

That's what this government is all about. They certainly didn't talk to voters. They didn't talk to stakeholders about this. If they'd spoken to their friends, whether it be the Phil Hochsteins or the Taxpayers Federation or the Business Council…. Every one of those groups, as they have said publicly, think that this law is fundamentally wrong. They are opposed to this law in the same way that people on the progressive side are opposed to this law.

If there is an advantage or an upside to this, it is probably that it has coalesced people around an issue that clearly demonstrates the total disrespect of this government for British Columbia and democratic processes that is encapsulated in Bill 42. It has coalesced a wide range of interests and groups behind that, saying that they recognize that that is exactly where the government is going.

The other thing that the Chief Electoral Officer says in his service plan, in strategies for providing an inclusive and accessible electoral process…. As he says, they look to "develop and implement long-term public education strategies to engage voters and improve democratic participation."

Now, I'm sure that if you asked the Chief Electoral Officer whether he thought the actions of this government in Bill 42 to cut at least 15,000 homeless people — and likely tens of thousands of others who are marginalized and transient often — out of the democratic process, whether he thought that that was improving democratic participation, I would suggest that the Chief Electoral Officer would say no, that absolutely isn't. That's not how you improve participation.

You don't improve it by slamming the door on people. You improve it by encouraging more people to come to the polls, by making it easier for people who have the legitimate right to vote — like those 15,000 people or the vast majority of them — to come to the polls. You make it easier for them to cast their democratic franchise and cast their vote. That's not what the government does with Bill 42. Instead, it shuts the door on these people. That's what the Chief Electoral Officer said in his service plan.

You know, there are a number of things that could have been done by this government that would have improved the electoral process, in our view. There are a number of things that could have been done that have been done in other jurisdictions with success — a

number of things that actually would deal with one of the fundamental questions. I heard the Government House Leader talk about money and politics. So let's talk about money and politics. Let's talk about how we deal with the challenges of money and politics.

On this side of the House, the Leader of the Official Opposition has put the proposition on the table that should have been Bill 42 instead of this gag law. It has put the position on the table that says: "If you want to take money out of politics, take the corporate donations out of politics. Take the union donations out of politics." Make it a situation where individuals need to make those donations, and they need to be within reasonable limits. Begin to talk about the whole issue of election finance and campaign finance in a more extended way, but take that money out.

Take the money out of politics so that the real influence, which often is campaign donors, all of a sudden becomes much less of a factor. Make it a situation so that this government then could say: "We're not beholden to the corporate sector because they pay for our campaigns lock, stock and barrel. That's not why we cater to them day in and day out." They could say: "We don't get money from those people. What we do is support them because we believe in their view." That would be just fine.

But when you say, "Oh no. We're catering to them because of the millions and millions and millions of dollars that the corporate sector gives to the B.C. Liberal Party…."

Now, the B.C. Liberals would talk about the NDP and unions. Well, as our leader has said — and we would pass this in a minute — bring in the legislation and get rid of all corporate and union donations. We will live with those consequences, and the B.C. Liberals can live with those consequences too. We'll have debates that have a lot more to do with principles and values and ideas than they have to do with how big your wallet is. Take the money out of the game.

That's what we've said, but that's not what's here. That's not what's here one bit. Instead, what we have, of course, is a situation where the government has chosen to use Bill 42 to put these gag measures in place and to create a situation where we now have a challenge around the ability of people who are vulnerable to vote, in many instances. That's the challenge we face.

What did we see today? We saw backtracking by the government. The government has backtracked, and what they've done is said: "We have a bill that, obviously, everybody is telling us…. We thought we might slip this one through, but clearly, the people of British Columbia are too wise for that." They're too wise for that. The people of British Columbia said no with the strongest voices possible.

As a result of the voice of this opposition, as a result of the voices of many of the organizations that engage in public policy in this province, as a result of the voices of many British Columbians — individual citizens and British Columbians in this province — as a result of the voices of those who are most vulnerable — of the homeless, of the people who advocate for and speak for homeless people and people who are disenfranchised in our province…. As a result of all those voices and as a result of the voices of the media, as a result of the voices of the legal community, as a result of the voices of the civil liberties communities, as a result of the voices of just about everybody…. With the exception of the 46 people who sit on the other side of this House, just about everybody else in the province said that this is a bad idea.

This undermines the democratic process. It cuts people off who shouldn't be cut off from participating in that democratic process, and it has no value at all. There is quite literally no value in this bill at all. It's negative from the front cover to the back cover.

There's nothing about this legislation that does anything to advance the democratic process in British Columbia. There's nothing about this legislation that helps the democratic process, that encourages the democratic process. There's nothing about this legislation that advances the position of the Chief Electoral Officer, in his service plan, when he said that we need to implement "long-term public education strategies to engage voters and improve democratic participation."

Well, this bill does nothing to do that. This bill takes us in exactly the other direction. It's a bad piece of legislation from the start to the finish.

What has the government done? It has come in and said: "We have this situation. We put ourselves in this box. God knows how we did it, but we put ourselves in this box. Everybody has seen it for what it is. Everybody has seen this scheme for what it is, and they're calling us out on it. They're telling us, 'We're not going to buy it.' They're telling us, 'We buy a lot from this government — this government that privatizes everything and anything it can, this government that helps its friends whenever it can, this government that does everything it can in secrecy, this government that does its best to hide from public process and from engagement and from accountability on every issue after issue after issue.'"

Well, they got called out on this one. The Attorney General, the Premier, the Government House Leader, all their pals on that side — they got called out on Bill 42. British Columbians will stomach a lot. They'll stomach having a lot rammed down them by this government, but what they don't stomach is when you mess with their democratic process. They're not buying that.

They have the one right. They have that right to express themselves, to use their voice, and they have the right on election day to cast their ballot and make the decision over who will sit in this place and represent them. Bill 42 is an affront to that. Bill 42 undermines that right, and British Columbians are having none of it.

The amendments that the Attorney General is bringing in do nothing to change that. It's a way to try to get off the hook. It's damage control for this mess that he brought in called Bill 42. It's damage control for this most objectionable piece of legislation. So what he does is bring in this amendment that we'll never get to debate, because I can assure you that bringing this in with a couple of days left in the session almost guarantees that we don't get to discuss it. It almost guarantees that.

You can be assured that this government and this Attorney General and this Premier aren't going to be prepared to say: "This is important. Maybe we better bring it back in the fall for the fall session and debate this in the fall. Maybe that's what we should do." But they're not going to do that, because in the same way that this government looks to shut down democracy in this province at every turn, we can be assured that they will shut it down by not calling us back in the fall to debate.

They will shut it down by not allowing the people's representatives to have their voice in this place like we're supposed to, because it's inconvenient for them. When they're scheming in that cabinet room as to how they fill their pockets, the pockets of their friends and in terms of their view and how they privatize this province, it's inconvenient for them to be held accountable here. So you can be assured that we won't be back this fall unless they're dragged back kicking and screaming and embarrassed to do it.

We will do everything we can to embarrass them into coming back, and we'll see how it goes.

If this government had the courage of its convictions on Bill 42, they would be saying: "We'll bring it back in the fall. This will be the first thing on the agenda, Bill 42, when we come back and sit again on October 6. We'll debate it through, and we'll have our day then." That would allow lots of time between now and then for the public to have its say, for the public to continue to express itself, for others to have their say on this issue and for the pressure to grow.

I suspect that the pressure would grow enough that even this bunch on the other side would fold up their tent by October and say: "We sure messed that one up. Let's just let it go away and pretend it never happened, and maybe by May of '09 nobody will remember." That seems to be a big part of the B.C. Liberal strategy. "Maybe by May of '09 nobody will remember. Or better yet, maybe if we have all of these promises and commitments that are out there sometime way after May of '09, maybe people will believe that we're actually going to do it."

Well, that's the situation we face now. It's a bad piece of legislation. It's a bad bill. It hurts the democratic process, and it disenfranchises the people who need to be most encouraged to participate in our process. It does those things. It offers nothing of benefit in return. It doesn't deal with the issue of political donations and the limits that should be put on political donations, on all parties. It does none of that.

It's a piece of legislation that does not deserve support by anybody who is a democrat. Certainly, the amendments we've seen from the Attorney General, which were enunciated today by the Government House Leader in this House, do absolutely nothing to repair the fundamental flaws with this bill. It didn't deserve support before today, and the amendments being foisted on us that are being put forward today don't change that one bit. It still doesn't deserve support by this House or by British Columbians. I look forward to an opportunity to vote against Bill 42.

J. Horgan: I, too, am pleased to rise and participate in the debate on Bill 42, the Election Amendment Act, 2008. I was listening carefully when the House Leader, on behalf of the Attorney General, spoke to the amendments that are on the order paper today.

Of course, speaking to amendments at second reading is not something that we traditionally do. I think this is a result of a government and a House Leader that have so badly mismanaged the legislative calendar this session that we have the spectre, unknown to me in my time in this place, of a bill being amended by another bill. In the case of Bill 14, there's an amendment in Bill 43 to deal with Bill 14, and we haven't even gone to committee stage on that legislation.

Here we have the House Leader rising at second reading, when we're speaking about the principles of a bill that has been introduced by this government without any consultation with the opposition, without apparently any significant consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer, because some of the recommendations and proposals in this legislation were not recommended by that independent officer.

In fact, they came out of the head of someone at executive council or someone servicing executive council at the public affairs bureau or deep in the bowels of the issue management group in the Premier's office. But it certainly wasn't put together with a view to improve the electoral process in British Columbia. That, in my opinion, should be the objective of the Attorney General.

It should be the objective of the chief law enforcement officer in this province to ensure that legislation that comes into this place is well-thought-out, has had rigorous review by constitutional lawyers such as Joe Arvay, for example, who has weighed in on this legislation and found it has a fatal flaw.

I heard, again, the Attorney in a scrum just moments ago in the corridor, talking about Mr. Arvay having missed the mark, and that a candidate is a candidate is a candidate when, in fact, the Election Act says you are not certified to be a candidate until the writ period.

So we'll obviously agree to disagree, and we won't have the opportunity, as we should on a bill of such great importance, to have a discussion at committee stage. It was laughable to hear the Government House Leader today stand in this place and say that he looked forward to committee stage debate when he knows full well that 48 hours from now we're going to be in this place, the guillotine will come down, and this bill will pass without sufficient debate.

It's with that in view, keeping in mind that the Premier, the head of the government of British Columbia, on previous occasions has said that this is outrageous, that we should not have gag laws introduced by governments in British Columbia. He spoke eloquently against such actions in the past. Yet here he is — without any

consultation with the opposition, without any broad discussion in the community — about to change the way we elect people to this place, not in the best interests of British Columbians, I would argue, but in the best interests of the B.C. Liberal Party.

It's outrageous. It's unconscionable. Every single observer of this place has said so to this point in time. The government's response is to bring forward a halfhearted amendment at the eleventh hour after no discussion and no debate.

J. Horgan: Speaking to the amendment to Bill 42, the rationale for this hoist motion is quite a simple one, and I think even understandable by those on the opposite side. I am delighted that the Attorney is going to be paying close attention to this matter.

We have a legislative calendar for this place. We have a fall sitting by statutes, by agreement. The rules of this place say that we will come back here in the fall to deal with legislation. What we need to do with Bill 42, with the gag law, the amendment to the Election Act that will take away the rights of those who have no home, that will take away the rights of third parties to speak freely and candidly about government initiatives….

Imagine tabling a budget in this province and then restricting the ability for anyone to comment on it. It's unbelievable. Only a B.C. Liberal government could bring forward such an outrageous amendment to the fundamental basis of our democracy, the Election Act — how we get people to come to this place, how we decide who will represent the people of British Columbia.

Stacking the deck is not how you do it. Last fall we had the Government House Leader stand in this place with respect to another piece of legislation which was going to amend the report from the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The Government House Leader said, "This is too important to ram through. This needs all-party support," and they withdrew the legislation. That was the right thing to do. They said that we cannot amend the way we elect people to the province of British Columbia without broad cooperation in this House, without broad consultation.

Well, what happened over the past six months? What happened? The government decided that it was in their interest to ram through a gag law. It wasn't in their interest to amend the boundaries without the support of the opposition. You can't have it both ways in the real world.

At my house, in my neighbourhood, with my constituents, they have to abide by fundamental principles. We all agree as a civil society that this is how we will conduct our affairs. That's why we come to this place. It's the foundation of our democracy. We agree how we elect people. They come here, and we have free and frank debates, not just in this place but in the broader community. This law stifles that ability. It curtails our ability to speak freely about issues in the public domain. It's absolutely outrageous.

This hoist motion will allow the government to do the right thing. Take the summer off. Let's have a wide-ranging discussion about this significant piece of legislation. Let's bring it back to the prescribed fall session, which the Premier said was groundbreaking. "We're going to have a fixed calendar so that all elected members and all citizens will know what goes on in this place."

Well, they chucked that out as soon as they got a real opposition. They didn't have the jam in 2001 to give full opposition status to the two members, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and the irrepressible Joy MacPhail. That was no good. "We won't have democracy on my watch," says the Premier. "We'll have open cabinet meetings until an opposition shows up."

Well, there's an opposition here now, and it's a darn good thing. If there wasn't an opposition here, this bill already would have been passed. Your rights and your rights — and your rights, in the gallery — would have been yanked away by this government, who only has one thing in mind: dropping the puck at the gold medal hockey game in 2010. That's the only objective here. That's the singular motivation for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. "How do I get my derrière into a seat here so that I can run the games in 2010?" It's outrageous.

There are fundamental principles at stake here. This government seems to disregard those at a whim. I'm hopeful that those in the gallery, the press, who are supposed to report on the events that happen in this place, will have the good sense to say: "Why won't the government follow the lead of the opposition and the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca?"

Hoist this legislation. Get it out of here. Let's bring it back in the fall, when every member in this place can stand and speak for their constituents about freedom of expression, about how we should do things in a civil and free society. Shame on you, hon. Attorney General. Hoist this bill. Let's do it right now.

D. Chudnovsky: You'll be aware, Madam Speaker, that one of the provisions of Bill 42, which was, until a minute ago, before us on the floor of the assembly, would restrict the voting rights of people who are homeless and people who are marginalized. I speak in favour of the motion to hoist Bill 42, and I speak at the moment strictly on the issue of the government's plan, the government's bill, which will potentially disenfranchise thousands of people who are homeless and marginalized in this province.

The irony is that this government brings this law, which will make it difficult or impossible for homeless people to vote, at a time when we have the worst crisis

of homelessness in this province that we've had since the Great Depression. It's ironic and telling that this government would choose now, when we are in the midst of a crisis of homelessness that sees 10,000 to 15,000 of our neighbours — they're not some alien species from another planet; they're our neighbours — facing the plight of homelessness in British Columbia today.

The justification which was given by the Attorney General when he was asked why the changes were made, which make it more difficult, and in many cases impossible, for homeless people to vote…. When he was asked about that, the Attorney General said outside this House: "Well, it's because of our concern about fraud." People would somehow be voting who don't have the right to vote.

When he was asked what evidence there is of fraud, his answer was that there is no evidence of fraud — nor was there any recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer in his report that this kind of restriction on the ability of poor people to vote should be brought in.

I support this motion to hoist, because there are solutions to the problem. I would recommend highly to the Attorney General — who I see across the way, who might be across the way — that he take seriously the solutions that are available to him, if he doesn't want to discriminate against and disenfranchise homeless people.

It's simple. Write into the bill — and you've got six months to do it — a provision that says that a statutory declaration is sufficient identification for a person to be eligible to vote and that the statutory declaration does not require a specific address and that that identification is sufficient for somebody to vote. It's a simple way to solve the problem. It's a simple way to assert the right of all British Columbians to vote. People can put in the statutory declaration a local community centre or local address that is close to where they stay. It's a simple solution to the problem.

If the Attorney General and the government aren't after disenfranchising poor people, homeless people and marginalized people in this province, they have six months…. All they have to do is to vote for this hoist motion, and we will provide for them six months to do the simple changes to this legislation which will allow our friends and neighbours, who happen to be homeless, to take their places along side all the rest of us in the democratic process. This is a solution that we present to the Attorney General and the government.

With this hoist motion, we provide for them the opportunity to move on that recommendation. If they are serious about the widest possible democracy in this province, they'll do it. Our problem in British Columbia is not that too many people vote; our problem is that not enough people vote. The legislation, Bill 42, as it sits, restricts that further. We don't want it restricted. Vote for the hoist motion, and fix this legislation.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in the debate on Bill 42 and speak to the hoist motion and why it's so important that the government see reason and listen to the opposition and the thousands of British Columbians across this province who have pointed out exactly what is wrong with this bill.

This bill is, pure and simple, a gag order. The announcement of the government today that they want to go from 120 days to 60 days is nothing short of laughable. It was wrong at 120 days. It is wrong at 60 days. What is surprising is that the Attorney General knows this. The Attorney General sat on the bench of this province for so many years. He knows the law, as he is so fond of telling this House. He was a judge, as he is so fond of telling this House. He knows that this piece of legislation will not survive a constitutional challenge. He knows it.

He may have to defend this piece of legislation, which I have no doubt was drafted on a desk in the Premier's office. I don't believe for a minute that it was drafted in his office. He's the one who has to carry the can on this. He can put up a brave front all he wants, but he knows in every legal fibre of his being, in every judicial ounce of experience in his body, that this is a bad piece of legislation that will not stand a constitutional challenge.

I have heard that they're cutting it from 120 days down to 60 days. I've heard of the Wisdom of Solomon. Well, this is definitely Solomon without the wisdom, because it is still a bad piece of legislation at 60 days, as it was at 120 days. This is a gag law, plain and simple. The effect of this is to say: "Okay, you know what? We're going to pretend that we're listening to you. So you want to talk about issues in the province of British Columbia? Fine. Under the old way, you couldn't talk about them, basically, from — what? — December on. Now we're going to cut it down to 60 days."

Okay. So, in essence, what the government's saying is: "You can talk about how bad the government is. You can have free speech over Christmas and New Year's when everybody else has other things on their mind. But come Valentine's Day, the love-in's over, and the gag law's coming in, and as we head into a session, we don't want anyone criticizing the throne speech. We don't want anyone criticizing a budget. We don't want anyone criticizing anything in our run-up to try and control as tightly as possible the agenda around an election."

I never thought I would see the day that you would see that in British Columbia. We see it in some other places that style themselves as democracies — Zimbabwe is one that comes to mind — but not here in British Columbia. This is a bad piece of legislation, and it deserves to be defeated. At the very least there should be six months — go out and talk to the public; go out and consult. Talk to the business community, who said no to this piece of legislation. Talk to Phil Hochstein. The number of times that he and I agree on something is not very many, so if the two of us are saying this is a bad piece of legislation, the Attorney General should surely recognize this is a bad piece of legislation.

But finally, what's really, really interesting is that the government brings in some amendments in response to complaints, many of them from their friends, but they

fail to address the complaints that were raised by the member for Vancouver-Kensington about the homeless — in essence, the disenfranchising of their ability to vote. Why? Were they recommendations? No. Was there some upcry about this? No. More importantly, was there evidence? No.

Again, I come back to the Attorney General, who has to shepherd this colossal pile of mess through this House. As a former judge, he is, in essence, saying that the system is guilty, and the system is wrong, without any evidence to show that there's a problem. He would never stand for this in a courtroom. He would have never stood for this during his career as a lawyer or as a judge, that somehow you are to be found guilty without any evidence whatsoever.

Here we are. The government is tabling a bill that is ham-fisted in its attempt to say that there is a problem when it comes to homeless people, despite no evidence being presented in this House, no evidence being presented in the public. And we're going to pass a law to deal with it, saying, in essence, that they're guilty of fraud when there's no evidence in place.

The Attorney General, again, should know that this is bad legislation. That's not right, and he knows it's not right. They can try and paper this over and say: "We're cutting it from 120 days down to 60, and that's reasonable." It doesn't even begin to pass the smell test. When they were on this side of the House, they didn't support this type of legislation. This is far and away more than what goes on in any other part of the country, and it's wrong, plain and simple.

I have other colleagues who want to speak on this particular piece of legislation, who are going to make an effort to have the Attorney General and cabinet and the government see the light of day. I don't hold out much hope that they will. They are determined to ram this through, come hell or high water, but we will give our best shot, as many others in the public are giving their best shot to tell this government that this is wrong.

Repeal this gag piece of legislation. Support this hoist motion, and go out and do proper consultation. So, with that, I take my place and listen to other colleagues of mine to make good and provocative arguments.

Hon. C. Richmond: I just want to take my place for a few moments to speak against the hoist motion and to clear up a few comments made by the member for Vancouver-Kensington and the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast a little earlier regarding disenfranchising the homeless.

I can speak for my ministry, and I want to put on the record that we go to great lengths to provide the homeless people with identification so that they indeed may be able to vote. Our outreach workers are down on the street constantly talking to these people, people who aren't even aware of the services available to them, and our outreach programs have been very successful.

We have managed to get ID for many people. We have managed to find shelter homes for many people. In fact, retention rate is over 70 percent. However, if any person happens to be homeless, as the member said, and wishes to vote, we go to every length possible to provide that person with ID to conform to federal regulations. In many cases, all that is required is a social insurance number. If they don't have that, we'll do everything we can to get them an acceptable piece of ID. We will even pay for the cost of that ID for those who, I've heard it said, do not have the wherewithal to afford it.

Our intent is not to exclude homeless people but to strengthen voter identification requirements. These changes are modelled on the federal Canada Elections Act. Under the amendments, B.C.'s Chief Electoral Officer would have the discretion to determine appropriate documents that can be used to indicate an individual's residence. In most cases, a shelter would do — or any place that the homeless person frequents, or a soup kitchen, some place that this homeless person frequents.

We are committed to ensuring that the system is transparent, that these people do meet federal regulations on standards to vote. We try to get BCID or B.C. picture driver's licence and one secondary piece, such as a birth certificate. We need proof of identity for all members of a family unit.

For new applicants who can't prove their identity to us but meet all other eligibility requirements, we can place them on hardship assistance until they can get the required ID. In this case, we can also pay them an ID supplement to pay the cost of obtaining ID.

For returning clients, if we already have ID on file and are satisfied that it proves identity, we go with that. For existing clients who lose their ID, we can pay suppliers directly for the cost, and we have a process to request birth certificates from B.C. on behalf of clients. We're moving to a more risk-managed process for approving identification.

I just wish to leave the point with the members opposite and for those who may be watching at this time that we are not intending to exclude any homeless people from voting — quite the contrary. We are reaching out to them and saying to them: "If you wish to vote, we will do everything possible to make it easy for you to vote. We will get you an ID. We will pay for the ID. We will encourage you…."

D. Chudnovsky: All on election day. That all happens on election day. Simple.

Hon. C. Richmond: The member for Vancouver-Kensington has trouble refraining from speaking when someone else has the floor. I didn't interrupt you when you were speaking, hon. Member.

Hon. C. Richmond: I just want to put on the record that we go to every effort to make sure that every person is able to vote. We have outreach workers who work with these people every day to say to them: "If you wish to vote, we'll do everything possible to make that happen."

N. Macdonald: I'll begin by saying that I reject the premise of what the minister is saying completely. There is no question that there are two fundamental problems with this bill.

One is partly what the minister talked about — section 8. The need for the hoist legislation is that section 8 is fundamentally undemocratic, and there is no question that the practical impact of section 8 will be that it is going to make it more difficult or impossible for people that are homeless to vote. There is no question that that is the result.

It's not just me. Anyone who looks at the legislation reaches that conclusion. It's not just the homeless. It is also going to be people who are moving from place to place, and that means the young.

What we have consistently seen from this government is an attack, a war on the poor and the young, and that is consistent. If you look at the results, you cannot reach any other conclusion in a time when there is wealth, when the government sits with wealth. We have more homeless than at any time since the Great Depression.

Now, how is that a record that could be in any way interpreted other than that it is a deliberate attempt to make life more miserable for the poor? Now they will remove their democratic rights to vote, and for the young. For the young, the minimum wage, the training wage…. There was a promise not to reduce an already inadequate minimum wage — a promise like so many promises from this government, from this Premier, broken. They even have a training wage. So another attack on the poor and the young.

You have a need, as members before on the NDP side, to get more people involved in the political process, yet we see a government attempting to remove people from the political process through section 8 and through other parts of the gag law.

You have a deliberate choice to put in place policies that push more and more families into poverty. It is no coincidence that for five years in a row the rate of child poverty here in this province has grown steadily worse.

While this government may refer to them as "these people," that is not the attitude that we have in the NDP on this side. These are our neighbours, these are our friends, and we do not accept any attempt to not only push them into deeper poverty but to remove them from the political process altogether.

Let's talk about section 59, which is the gag law. All members on the government side are complicit in voting to reduce democratic rights that have longstanding…. What we know is that ultimately this is again — and I say again — going to be a law that the courts are going to find is….

N. Macdonald: The courts are going to throw this out. They are fundamentally going to find that it is not a law that will stand the test of the courts, just like Bill 29. It will take time, and in that time, you may find that you have robbed people of the chance to participate in the political process.

With political advertising you are now moving from five months to less time. If it was wrong at five months, it is every bit as wrong with a reduced time. It is fundamentally improper to remove these democratic rights.

What you see from this Legislature and from this government is a constant and consistent attack on democratic rights and democratic principles. In this House we have seen the government rule that the two people that were here to represent an opposition back in 2001…. They did a wonderful job, but this government made it as difficult as possible by removing any chance for resources.

That was a deliberate decision, as we have seen the deliberate decisions here to reduce House sittings, to reduce estimates, to get rid of scheduled fall sittings. You see it again and again and again. Now you are going to take the ability of groups to talk about issues that are important to them. They will not be able to participate in the political process.

You see a deliberate attempt to reduce the democratic tools that people have to express themselves, and you have an attempt by this government to avoid scrutiny, to avoid accountability. There is no accident in it. It is a continuous, continuous pattern.

With this piece of legislation they will not even have the good grace to allow it to go through the proper process here in the House. They will not allow it to go to the next stage so that we have committee stage. And then they will guillotine it and force it through, just as they are doing with six or seven other pieces of legislation.

Let's talk about some of those pieces — the gas law. We will not even have a chance to properly debate the fuel tax that they're going to impose on rural B.C. We will not even have the opportunity here to properly look at that piece of legislation. These members, the government, know it is unpopular in rural B.C. They know it's unpopular, but we will not have a chance here to debate it, just as homeless people will not have an opportunity to vote, just as those who would participate in the political process will not be allowed to advertise.

In each and every way that they can, this government stacks the deck, and they stack the deck in a way that will benefit them and will hurt the public each and every time. They do it shamelessly and unacceptably.

Other things that they're going to push through. It's not only the gag law. It's not only the fuel tax. It's TILMA. It's others — all without proper debate.

In advertising, the exchange of ideas cannot be a bad thing. It cannot be a bad thing. Yet this government chooses to limit what can be said and how it is said. Even the media outlets that editorially are very supportive of this government have condemned the attempt to reduce participation in the political process.

Bill 42, if it was about some reasonable limitation that was in the public good, you could make an argument for it. But this has nothing to do with the public good. This has everything to do with the B.C. Liberals trying to stack the deck in their favour. The B.C. Liberals know that. We know that. The public knows that. That in no way should be acceptable.

As I've said before, if individual MLAs on the B.C. Liberal side are going to support this, then they're complicit in what is fundamentally undemocratic. The minister, who is the face of this piece of legislation, needs to understand that as well — that they are putting forward a piece of legislation that he should take no pride in. This is something that goes in the face of many of the things that people say that they believe in.

Now, this is a government that came to power promising open and accountable government. Yet we have consistently seen that we get the opposite. We get the denial of official party status. You get the cuts to funding of independent officers of the Legislature. You get games being played trying to choose the Auditor General. The children's commissioner — games being played around that. After first getting rid of that office, when it is brought back, there's an attempt to limit….

All of those…. What they have in common is the role of accountability, which is the same thing that is under attack in Bill 42 — accountability. You hide from accountability as a government when you have something to hide, something to be ashamed of, and you hope that the public does not see the government for what it is. You hide the mismanagement, but it is evident to all the level of mismanagement here. You hide the fact that so much of what is driven in this government policy is driven to help a corporate interest — a narrow corporate interest to make sure that B.C. Liberal donors and B.C. Liberal insiders are looked after first and foremost.

So Bill 42 is clearly an attempt to cloak the reality of mismanagement of this government. It is an attempt to limit discussion on three things that are critically important to rural British Columbia. It intends to limit the ability of people that know the health care system from talking on it. So health care — seniors, the treatment of workers…. That issue, we know the government has bungled. They have bungled health care.

It is the most important job that this government has. They have made a mess of it, and they do not want those in the system able to comment on the mess that they have made.

Secondly, education. The second-biggest factor in the government's budget. They know that they have made a mess there, and they do not want people who understand — parents, teachers — to have any ability to comment on what sort of a mess this government has made. They want to limit that debate. They want to take the ability of people to participate in the political process away from them.

Thirdly, public land. There is no question that in rural areas, the mistreatment of our public resources, of our public land, is something that many want to talk about. Many want to participate in the political process, but that's going to be taken away. So we cannot talk about the giveaway of forest lands, of companies being allowed to switch from forest companies to real estate companies and shippers of raw logs.

They will not be able to comment on the giveaway of our rivers and our land to set up a B.C. energy plan — the private power giveaway. There is tremendous interest in that, but each and every time our democratic ability to do anything about it, to comment on it, is taken away.

It's not only Bill 42. It's Bill 30, section 56, where local government is removed from the ability to have any say on private power. It's taken away….

N. Macdonald: We need to stop. We need to make sure that there is a hoist motion so that the public can fully understand what is going on with Bill 42— although I think the public does understand. The public does know that this is a fundamental attack on democratic rights. What each and every member on the government side is doing is taking one step closer…. I've used the term "complicit," because each of them is responsible for their own vote and for their own decision on whether this is an acceptable way to go forward.

Is it acceptable for the B.C. Liberal government to remove the rights of homeless people from voting? Is it acceptable for them to attack the young workers who have to move from place to place to work, to remove their ability to vote? Is that something that people came to this Legislature to do? Is it acceptable that they limit the ability of public bodies, of citizens groups, from participating in the political process?

Government members need to know that it is a limitation that the courts are going to throw out. They know it. They hope that happens after the election, but they know that it will not stand the test of a court.

So with all of those in front of you, the obvious thing is for this to go at least to a hoist motion, to at least take this back to the people. But to go and jam this through, which is exactly what it is, without proper debate to me speaks of a complete attempt to undermine the democratic rights of British Columbians.

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

C. James: I will be going into another issue regarding the Premier's office and something specifically in the Premier's office. I just want to take a moment, because it relates to these questions, to look at what we learned yesterday through the process of asking questions of the Premier and his office.

We learned yesterday that the Premier has changed his mind about answering questions regarding confidential documents and that despite what he said last year…. I'd like to just quote that. Last year the Premier said:

That was a quote from last year. As we know, those are questions that the Premier won't answer and has changed his mind and decided not to answer this estimates, even though nothing has changed from last year to this year.

What else did we learn yesterday as we went through the estimates process? We also learned that the Premier believes that he has absolutely no responsibility for laws that are broken by anyone in his office, any staff in his office. He believes that it's not a problem and that it's not his issue.

We also learned yesterday that the Premier believes that he has no responsibility, even though his deputy Premier pled guilty to breaking the law, to ensure that it doesn't happen again — that again, it's nothing to do with the Premier and nothing to do with the Premier's office. We also heard yesterday that the Premier believes that he has no role, nor does his office, in protecting the integrity of his office. That, again, is not his issue, not his responsibility.

We also canvassed the issue of improvements to the Lobbyists Registration Act based on the fact that one of the Premier's own staff pled guilty to violating that act. Again, the Premier, although he acknowledged that changes perhaps should be made, refused to give any time lines, refused to say whether it was a priority, about when this government will actually get around to looking at the Lobbyists Registration Act and making improvements.

We also heard yesterday from the Premier that he had absolutely no idea, nor did anyone in his staff have any idea, that an FOI was making accusations of money laundering at B.C. casinos and a lack of reporting by B.C. Lottery and that that issue was delayed for four years. He wanted the public to know that he had absolutely no idea that those issues were going on, despite a very large issues management team within the Premier's office.

Finally, the other issue that we learned about yesterday was that the Premier supported his members on the Finance Committee when they wanted to hinder the independent officer's ability to do her job by cutting the budget for the children's officer. The Premier said very clearly that he supported his members in their decision.

So what we learned yesterday should be no surprise, which is that the Premier is continuing to not be accountable to the public, to not be accountable for the issues that go on in his office.

I'd like to canvass another one of those issues in the Premier's office. This is regarding the KPMG report related to the relationship of the former deputy of Finance and the CEO of ICBC. Last October the Premier's office did release that KPMG report. Well, the Premier's office didn't release the report. They actually released a high-level summary of the report. That is contrary to what the Premier said previously, which was that he'd release the entire report.

I'd like to ask: is the Premier satisfied that this report that was commissioned by his deputy was adequate?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, I am satisfied that the report was adequate. In fact, we are in the process of doing exactly what I said we would do. The summary report has been provided. The report is now going through a freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy review. Subsequent to that review the full report will be released.

C. James: Is the Premier confident that the report dealt with all the issues regarding Mr. Taylor's dealings with Pilothouse?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let's review the facts. We received a third-party e-mail. We have reviewed, and KPMG has reviewed, all of the issues that arose out of that e-mail. As was initially said it would be, it has been done. The report is now subject to a freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy review. When that review is complete, it will be released.

C. James: As we know, we canvassed yesterday the fact that an FOI report sat for four years before it was released. So my question to the Premier is: do we have to wait four years for the release of this report?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't say to the Leader of the Opposition how long it will take for the release of the report.

The Freedom of Information Act is the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The professional public service reviews the information in a report. There are third parties who are covered in the report who will clearly have to be contacted and are being contacted with regard to the release of the information that they freely gave to KPMG. That report will be released. If there is concern about the extent of the release, there can be an appeal to the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner.

I think it's important that we recognize…. The challenge of the law is always to provide as much information as possible while we protect individuals' privacy. That is why it sometimes takes some time to take these reports to their final conclusion. I am sure that everyone is working as expeditiously as possible for the release of that report.

C. James: To the Premier: is the Premier giving encouragement to release this report, as he said in the first place? Although only a summary came out, has the Premier given his encouragement for this report to be released?

Hon. G. Campbell: It has always been the government's intention to release the report as quickly as possible. We said it was going to be subject to freedom of information and protection of privacy. A summary report was provided by KPMG so that their conclusions would be clear and public. That happened a number of months ago now.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is quite explicit about how these reports have to be handled. They are being handled in that way. It's in the government's interests and the public's interests to have that report completely available, under the auspices of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as quickly as possible.

C. James: It's now been almost eight months. Does the Premier feel that's a reasonable amount of time for the public to have to wait for this report to be released?

Hon. G. Campbell: I feel it's reasonable for us to go through the proper process. I think the public is protected by that, both in terms of the information that's made available and the protection of privacy that's required under the act.

C. James: I'll take it, then, that the Premier doesn't mind that the public has to wait and wait and wait and wait to try to get anything from this government.

That aside, let's take a look at the report itself. As the Premier will recall, the concerns regarding Mr. Taylor that actually triggered the report, the e-mail, had to do with Mr. Taylor's relationship with the principals of Pilothouse Group. That was what this e-mail was specifically about.

I'd like to ask the Premier: is he confident the report got to the bottom of that problem?

Hon. G. Campbell: I am confident the report was a comprehensive review of the issues that arose from the e-mail. KPMG was allowed to pursue the full scope of what they felt was appropriate for an inquiry into all of those matters.

I think it's important to read from the summary report from KPMG. "We found no evidence in the work we performed that Mr. Taylor used confidential information received through his employment with the government to further his private interests or make personal gains, divulged confidential information received through his employment with the government…benefited from the use of information acquired by reason of his employment…."

I think it was a comprehensive report. KPMG is a highly regarded and reputable firm that has been used by successive governments in the province of British Columbia to carry out this kind of work. I believe the report was thorough and dealt thoroughly with the matters that arose from the e-mail.

C. James: I'd just like to remind the Premier and go back to the real issue that was behind the concerns that arose through the e-mail. In fact, the Office of the Premier commissioned this report after it came to light that Mr. Taylor was a fishing companion of the Pilothouse principals.

According to a leaked e-mail by Brian Kieran, Mr. Taylor provided Pilothouse with information about a potential client and, in fact, connected Pilothouse to the client. That's what was alleged through the e-mail. But, in fact, the KPMG report didn't actually look at the relationship between Mr. Taylor and Pilothouse, did it?

My question to the Premier is: does he believe the Pilothouse issue was canvassed in the report from his office?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, we were put in receipt of a third-party e-mail. I think that e-mail was taken by our office. We commissioned KPMG to do a full report. We gave them a full, comprehensive scope to pursue whatever lines of questioning and investigation they

felt were appropriate. They did that, and they said quite clearly: "We found no evidence in the work we performed that Mr. Taylor used confidential information received through his employment with the government to further his private interests."

It's a very clear, straightforward report by a very reputable agency. I believe the issues were fully canvassed that were raised in the e-mail, as they should have been.

C. James: I think that the Premier is speaking about the terms of reference set by his deputy. In fact, KPMG did what they were able to do, but it's very clear through the terms of reference that pieces were eliminated.

I'd just like to remind the Premier that the Premier, in fact, when we first asked questions about the terms of reference, refused to release the terms of reference. He said it would be released with the report. Since then here's what we've found out.

My question is: when the Premier read the e-mail that, in fact, triggered this entire investigation, didn't he see that the issue actually related to Pilothouse and that the wrong terms and conditions were set for this review by his deputy minister?

Hon. G. Campbell: The inquiry by KPMG was comprehensive. They had full scope to pursue any paths of investigation that they felt were appropriate. They did that. They found that, in fact, the allegations were baseless, and they found that there was no evidence that Mr. Taylor used confidential information received through his employment with the government.

C. James: In fact, the Premier received two e-mails where the principals of Pilothouse talked about inappropriate information being shared by Mr. Taylor during a fishing trip with Brian Kieran. In fact, when we saw the terms of reference, there was absolutely nothing in there about lobbyists, about information being shared, about confidential information. The terms of reference went very clearly to the relationship with the auto dealers.

My question, again, to the Premier would be: how did that get at the fundamental issue of Mr. Taylor's relationship with Mr. Brian Kieran?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think I've given the answer to that, hon. Chair. Clearly, KPMG had the opportunity to follow any lines of investigation that they decided were appropriate under the circumstances. They found that the allegations were baseless. The allegations were baseless according to KPMG. They found no evidence.

C. James: Everything in an investigation has to do with the terms of reference set. KPMG was able to look at the terms of reference identified by the Deputy Minister to the Premier. In reviewing that terms of reference, could the Premier please tell me how he feels that terms of reference got to the issue at hand?

Hon. G. Campbell: KPMG was given the authority and requested, in fact, to pursue whatever lines of investigation they felt were appropriate. With regard to the e-mail, they did that. They found the allegations contained in the e-mail were baseless. They found no evidence that the work that was performed by Mr. Taylor used confidential information received through his employment with the government.

C. James: My question, then. The Premier says that KPMG had the ability to look at everything. Was the issue of the relationship with Pilothouse canvassed with KPMG by either the Premier or the Premier's deputy?

Hon. G. Campbell: The allegation made in the e-mail was that Mr. Taylor had acted inappropriately as Deputy Minister of Finance. That was fully reviewed, fully investigated. KPMG was enabled to follow whatever line of inquiry they felt was appropriate. They had full and complete scope of investigation to review that. They did that. They found the allegations were baseless.

C. James: Just to give the Premier some pieces of information, then, and ask him to respond to each of them. KPMG indicated the following information was withheld from them: "Paul Taylor did not allow KPMG to see a complete copy of his calendar, insisting on omitting a significant period of time."

My question to the Premier would be: how does that ensure open access to the investigation?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I understand it, KPMG was provided with all of the records that the government had in its possession. They reviewed those records thoroughly. They were able to pursue any line of inquiry that they felt was appropriate, coming out of that. As a result of their complete and thorough review, they found that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: Second piece of information for the Premier, then. KPMG indicated the following information was withheld from them. "Paul Taylor brought in a folder of information to the interview with KPMG that he refused to let auditors see."

To the Premier, how does that ensure the open ability to be able to investigate this issue?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's fair to say that KPMG did a full, comprehensive review. They have reported out on their full and comprehensive review. It was that the allegations were baseless.

I don't think they would have completed their report if they felt there were gaps in information for them to reach their conclusion. They've clearly laid out how they reach their conclusion. They are a reputable firm that has, I think, a very strong reputation for this kind of work. They have concluded that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: In fact, KPMG did as they were asked to by the deputy to the Premier, which was to investigate a very limited, narrow area of investigation around Paul Taylor. Those questions that I'm asking are related to the Premier's involvement in this and the deputy to the Premier's involvement in this.

Again, KPMG indicated that the following information was withheld from them. "The Campbell government erased computer backup tapes containing most of Paul Taylor's e-mails." I'd like to ask the Premier: how does that ensure openness and accountability on this investigation?

Hon. G. Campbell: The government was quite clear that we would request KPMG to do a thorough study. We in no way got in their way, in their line of investigation that they thought was appropriate. In fact, KPMG carried out their study with the full cooperation of government, and they found…. Their conclusion was that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: I'd like to ask the Premier then: is it standard practice for the government to erase backup tapes after a certain period of time, as happened in this case — that KPMG couldn't go back and review the tapes because they'd been erased?

Hon. G. Campbell: The standard operational practices with regard to information technology are handled through Labour and Citizens' Services. There are specific policies in place. If the Leader of the Opposition was not able to canvass those during the estimates and if she would like to provide me with a series of questions with regard to those practices, I'd be glad to retrieve the answers for her.

C. James: I'd ask the Premier for what the standard practice is in the Premier's office itself on e-mails and keeping track of tapes.

Hon. G. Campbell: We do not keep backup tapes in the Premier's office specifically for the office. We follow the standard information technology policies and practices that are practised by government. They are under the auspices of Labour and Citizens' Services.

C. James: Continuing on, then, with comments from KPMG around what information was withheld or made it difficult for them to do their investigation on Paul Taylor. KPMG stated that they couldn't verify who contacted Paul Taylor by phone as part of their investigation. Now, looking at phone records and studying people's phone calls obviously has importance when it comes to an investigation of an individual and what information they may or may not have given to either lobbyists or people outside government in violation of the act.

KPMG couldn't verify who contacted Paul Taylor by phone because they only had access to 7 percent of his phone calls. They were never given a list of phone numbers for key individuals involved. Most importantly, Paul Taylor used his personal cell phone for almost all of his work, and KPMG was not allowed to see any of those phone records.

Again, my question to the Premier is: how does this ensure openness and accountability around this investigation?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's important to note that KPMG had full access to any records or documents that were held by government. They were able to carry out a complete and thorough review of all information that was available, and they reached the conclusion that the allegations were baseless. They found no evidence in the work that they performed that Mr. Taylor used confidential information received through his employment with the government.

C. James: It appears that today we're just going to get one answer. Yesterday we didn't get any answers, and we had avoidance. Today we're going to have one single answer.

Continuing on, to give the Premier a chance to continue to give the same response. When we take a look at the tapes that were erased…. They were Paul Taylor's tapes. Paul Taylor was previously a member of the Premier's staff. Were the tapes that were erased, which KPMG was trying to get a look at, done in compliance with the act that the Premier talks about in Labour and Citizens' Services?

Hon. G. Campbell: Labour and Citizens' Services works directly with KPMG with regard to retrieving all information that the government had. This is a five-year-old issue. I'm sure there are challenges in dealing with information that's available from five years ago. But in spite of whatever limitations KPMG may have felt there were, they reached their own conclusion — not the government's conclusion; their own conclusion — that these allegations were baseless. They found no evidence in the work that they carried out, that they performed, that Mr. Taylor used confidential information received through his employment with the government.

C. James: I come back again to remind the Premier that KPMG investigated what they were able to investigate, limited by his deputy's term of reference on this investigation. In fact, I'd just like to read to the Premier

a quote. KPMG states the fact that they are prevented from reporting on "relationships between individuals" and that that represents a significant limitation on their ability to report out on detailed findings.

Again, I'd ask the Premier: does he feel that the terms of reference that were put together by his deputy were sufficient to allow a full, independent investigation on this issue regarding Paul Taylor?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, I am satisfied with the work that KPMG carried out. I think that they were given a full opportunity to pursue any lines of inquiry that they felt were appropriate to follow up on the issues that were raised by the e-mail. I know their conclusions are their own.

They are recognized as forensic accountants, are obviously required to meet the standards of forensic accountants. They have said clearly that the allegations, in their minds, were baseless, and that they found no evidence.

Mr. Taylor served the government of British Columbia. He served the government and the people of British Columbia well. I think that the attacks on him should stop. I think KPMG has been clear that they found no evidence and that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: In fact, it's important for the public to understand that there has not been a full, independent investigation on this issue based on the terms of reference, which were limiting. I'd just like to read to the Premier how Mr. Kieran's partner, Jamie Elmhirst, referred to Mr. Taylor in the e-mails: "a blabby deputy minister." This is a quote.

This blabby deputy minister — according to Mr. Kieran and according to the e-mail — provided Mr. Kieran with key information that would be helpful in securing a contract with the auto dealers.

My question would be, then, to the Premier. Does the Premier believe that these kinds of dealings between deputies and lobbyists are appropriate?

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, I'm not going to deal with third-party allegations or any other sort that the Leader of the Opposition may want to read into the record. I am going to deal with the fact that KPMG carried out a thorough report that followed up any line of inquiry that they felt was appropriate. They had full scope to do that. They reached their own conclusion. Their conclusion was that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: I remind the Premier again that I read into the record the fact that KPMG did not have full scope, that they were limited in their scope, that a number of pieces of key information were not available to them, that a number of pieces related to this were not allowed to be canvassed because of the limitations of the terms of reference that were developed by his deputy. So I would like to ask the Premier: did he read those e-mails?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the important thing is that KPMG read the e-mails. KPMG carried out the study. KPMG did a comprehensive review, and KPMG found that the allegations were baseless. I have not seen all of the e-mails that the Leader of the Opposition may or may not refer to. I can't claim to have seen all of the e-mails that have been involved.

I think there was one e-mail that I was made aware of. That e-mail led to the full investigation by KPMG. KPMG did a full and thorough review. They had the scope to carry out any line of inquiry that they felt was appropriate, and they found, as a result of their investigations, that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: Then, to the Premier: in reading the one e-mail, did he not feel it was important that the relationship between a deputy and government and a lobbyist be investigated?

Hon. G. Campbell: I felt it was important that we have a full and independent review of the allegations that were contained in the e-mail. KPMG is a highly regarded professional firm recognized for the thoroughness of investigations of this sort. They carried out an investigation. They did that following the lines of inquiry that they felt were important, and their conclusion was that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: A question to the Premier, then, about the terms of reference: did the Premier review those terms of reference for KPMG?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm satisfied that the terms of reference created all the opportunities for KPMG to fully pursue, to canvass, to investigate and to inquire into the issues that arose out of the e-mail.

C. James: Could the Premier please describe exactly who in his office was involved in setting those terms of reference?

Hon. G. Campbell: The terms of reference were set by my deputy in consultation with the Deputy Attorney General and the deputy for the Public Service Agency.

C. James: Could the Premier answer, then, why the terms of reference given to KPMG were asked to eliminate the key relationship between Mr. Taylor and Pilothouse?

Hon. G. Campbell: The terms of reference actually provided KPMG with the full scope of pursuing any lines of inquiry that they felt were appropriate in terms of the issues that were raised by the e-mail.

C. James: In fact, the terms of reference are very clear in that they directed KPMG to look at the relationship between Mr. Taylor and the auto dealers. Wouldn't the Premier agree that this actually deflects away from the real issue that should have been investigated?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I've tried to say repeatedly this morning, KPMG was requested and authorized to carry out a thorough review of the issues that arose out of the e-mail. KPMG was the organization that decided what issues arose out of the e-mail. They were not just permitted, but they were required to follow any lines of inquiry that they felt were required. They did do that. In following those lines of inquiry they reached their conclusion. Their independent conclusion was the allegations were baseless.

C. James: In fact, KPMG says that they were not, as part of their terms of reference, to look at relationships with others. My question to the Premier would be: how does that ensure open ability for an investigation?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, KPMG was hired to carry out their review. They carried out that review within the standards that are established for forensic accountants. They were permitted to pursue any line of inquiry that they felt was appropriate. Following their inquiry and their investigations, they reached the conclusion — their own conclusion — that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: Was KPMG requested to work within the terms of reference set by the Premier's office?

Hon. G. Campbell: The terms of reference made it clear that it was wide open for KPMG to take any steps that they felt were necessary for a thorough review. They did that, and they found that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: I can read back into the record again, if the Premier doesn't remember, all of those areas that KPMG said that they weren't able to gather information nor able to go to because of the terms of reference. I would ask the Premier, then: once he saw the terms of reference, once he saw the report, once he saw the letter from KPMG that outlined the pieces of information that they were not able to gather, did that raise any red flags for the Premier?

Hon. G. Campbell: I am satisfied that KPMG had full scope to follow any lines of inquiry or investigation that they felt were appropriate to reach a conclusion. They did that, and they reached the conclusion that the allegations were baseless.

C. James: The Premier obviously doesn't have any concerns about the fact that information was hindered. It was not provided. KPMG outlined in their letter, in their report, in the summary of their report that they were limited in their scope, that information was not made available. But that seems to be of absolutely no concern to the Premier.

Let's take a look at the other e-mail. There were two e-mails — and the Premier will remember this — one received in November, one received last winter, a copy of another e-mail in which Mr. Taylor passed information alleged in the e-mail to Mr. Kieran. In that e-mail Mr. Kieran writes that his partner Mr. Erik Bornman said: "Just got a call from Paul Taylor's wife. She's the message bearer. She suggests we get Omnitrax together with Larry Blain, the new CEO of Partnerships B.C. Larry's on holidays at the moment, but Paul says that all partnerships with government, including BCR, will be vetted by Partnerships. Don't worry. I'll pull this together next week." That's the e-mail from December that was released.

Hon. G. Campbell: The e-mail that I believe the Leader of the Opposition is referring to was received on December 5. It was sent to the Deputy Attorney General with the instruction in the event that it had raised any issues outside of the KPMG report that it should be given to the special prosecutor. That has taken place. There was a letter that was sent to the opposition leader on February 12 outlining that. In view of that, I will be making no further comments.

C. James: If I can ask the Premier — and I appreciate that the Premier wants to find another way to avoid answering questions with something being before the courts, as we heard yesterday with him not wanting to answer any of the questions: considering this e-mail and the concerns that it raised — putting aside the fact that it's being looked at by the special prosecutor — based on this e-mail, did the Premier, then, think it was important to go back and take a look at the terms of reference previously used for the investigation of Paul Taylor, to see if they were broad enough?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, the Leader of the Opposition received a letter on February 12. It outlined the steps that had been taken with regard to that e-mail. I don't think the KPMG review is in any way undermined as a result of that e-mail, but I will not be commenting with regard to issues that are currently before the courts or in the hands of the special prosecutor.

The Chair: Leader of the Opposition, we have spent a considerable amount of time pursuing this one line. If you'd like to take a new line of questioning.

I'll ask the Premier, then: is it the responsibility of his office or any staff in his office to enforce conflict and conduct rules as they pertain to deputies or to government officials?

Hon. G. Campbell: There is a code of conduct for the public service. All deputy ministers report to the head of the public service, who is my deputy minister, which is why the allegations with regard to the former Deputy Minister of Finance's code of conduct were reviewed by my deputy minister and why the independent review was launched by my deputy minister.

C. James: It's been a busy time for the Premier's office. I just want to recap, as we move on to another section, the kind of activity that we've talked about over the last few hours that we've had in estimates.

We've seen that the Premier's office cleared Ken Dobell of any conflict, assuring the Premier that he was protected by the arrangements in his office. In fact, Ken Dobell subsequently pled guilty, and a special prosecutor said that those arrangements amounted to influence-peddling. That's one of the issues that has occurred under the Premier's office.

Again, the Premier's office appeared to be unaware about any of the provisions of the Lobbyists Act with regard to Mr. Dobell when the contractual arrangements were put together for the office. In fact, Mr. Dobell himself raised the concerns around conflict. He himself put those issues on the table. Apparently, the Premier's office didn't think it was important and didn't pay attention to that. It's another area where the office has been particularly busy and has fallen down.

We then saw, as we've just canvassed, that KPMG was asked to only look at a limited area of concern when it came to Paul Taylor, that they completely eliminated the issue of Pilothouse and lobbyists that was out in the press, and that that wasn't in fact even part of the investigation, which led KPMG to go down a path that they were told to go down by the Premier's office but that in fact completely ignored the real issue that the Premier now says he won't talk about, which is the concern about information being leaked to lobbyists.

It's extraordinary, when I take a look at all of those examples. I'd like to ask the Premier: given all of those examples and all of the issues that have occurred in his office over this last year, does the Premier continue to believe that things in his office are set up to try and address conflict, interest and legal issues that may arise?

C. James: I shouldn't be surprised, considering the kind of ignoring of questions and issues, that we get that kind of response from the Premier. It just shows once again how he is completely out of touch with the real issues that matter and how he is completely ignorant of any issues related to conflict of interest or related to concerns that may come up in his office.

I'd now like to move on to another issue related to the Premier, to the Premier's office, to meetings with the Premier. It's related to a former minister of government, Graham Bruce. As the Premier knows, last October the former conflict commissioner, H.A.D. Oliver, stated that the kind of lobbying that Mr. Bruce had engaged in, which was lobbying his former cabinet colleagues, violated the 24-month cooling-off period and was exactly the kind of — and this is a quote from H.A.D. Oliver — "straight corruption" that the Members' Conflict of Interest Act was created to avoid.

Now, I would like to ask the Premier: does the Premier share Mr. Oliver's concerns?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think Mr. Oliver served the people of British Columbia admirably. His experience is something that we all, I think, benefited from, and his recommendations are, I'm sure, being reviewed by the current conflict commissioner for recommendations of how we may or may not be able to improve the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

The Members' Conflict of Interest Act is for members, however, and I think that the current conflict commissioner will make his recommendations on how we can improve or strengthen that act as he sees fit.

If I could remind the leader to watch her description of words of members of the House.

C. James: Just to come back to the Premier, the question actually wasn't related to changes that may be required on the conflict act, and in fact, we can talk a little bit more about that as we go on with the line of questioning. But the questioning was around the quote from H.A.D. Oliver, who actually reviewed this and who said, as I said in the quote, that it is "straight corruption" that the members' act was created to avoid. That's a quote from H.A.D. Oliver.

So my question would be to the Premier: does he agree with H.A.D. Oliver's assessment of this specific case and this specific quote that H.A.D. Oliver provided?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have the report that the member is referring to. I think that it is important to recognize that all members are expected to act honourably in this House, and all members when they leave this House are expected to act honourably and, as I said yesterday, within the laws of the province of British Columbia.

C. James: I would be happy to get a copy of the letter for the Premier if he doesn't have it. I would be happy to provide that to him, and then we can perhaps come back to it this afternoon, and he can let me know his thoughts after he's read the letter.

I would have thought that he would have read the letter. It was regarding a former member of his government, so I would have thought he would have read the quote and read the letter and read the review, but I take the Premier's word that he hasn't read it and hasn't seen the letter, so I'd be happy to provide it to him.

To help the Premier, then, I would like to take a little bit of time to actually revisit the events that led to those comments. Perhaps that will jog the Premier's memory. We saw Graham Bruce actually say directly that he contacted the Premier to inform him of the work that he was doing on behalf of the Cowichan Tribes. So does the Premier recall having that conversation with Graham Bruce?

Hon. G. Campbell: I recall meeting with Mr. Bruce following his term as an MLA.

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't recall the details of the meeting, but I recall a discussion generally around the North American Indigenous Games, which are coming to the Cowichan Valley this year. I think it will be a great celebration for the Cowichan Valley. I think we talked about the Olympics and the potential for reconciliation between first nations and the people of British Columbia with regard to their full participation in the Olympics and the kind of reconciliation activities that are taking place across the province right now.

C. James: Perhaps I can help the Premier's memory a little bit just by quoting some of the minutes from the Cowichan Tribes committee, and this is a quote from the minutes. "On Monday, July 10, 2006" — and this is Mr. Bruce being quoted — "I contacted the Premier and informed him that I would be presenting a proposal to the Cowichan Tribes Chief and council and wanted to ensure he knew of this initiative because we'll be looking for the province's support to make these initiatives happen." That's a quote from the minutes of Cowichan Tribes Treaty Committee meeting on July 19.

Does the Premier remember that conversation with Mr. Bruce and the conversation around coming to the government for some work for a proposal and some funding?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't actually comment on the minutes of the Cowichan Tribe. The opposition leader should talk to the Cowichan with regard to that.

The meeting I recall having was one where we talked generally about the North American Indigenous Games, the opportunities for reconciliation that were coming out of those games, the potential for reconciliation that came out of an event like the Olympics and the four host first nations that were going to be there.

I think most people understand that the Cowichan First Nation is very proud of the fact that they're hosting the North American Indigenous Games. They'll have indigenous communities and athletes from all over North America coming to Cowichan at that time. Mr. Bruce was clearly enthusiastic about that, as is the government, and we discussed the matters that I referred to in my earlier answer.

I can't speak to minutes of a meeting that I was never at, and I think that that's something that the Cowichan should speak to.

C. James: In fact, I'm asking for the Premier's thoughts around the meetings and the conversations that he had with Mr. Bruce. All of us celebrate the North American Indigenous Games coming to Cowichan. It's an incredibly exciting time.

I took part as a volunteer in the very first North American Indigenous Games that were held here in Victoria. I was very proud of that, as I was a member of the school board and, as I said, spent my summer volunteering with the games. It was an incredible experience, and I would encourage everyone to take that experience again.

But this is actually talking about the Premier's office and activities that went on with a former member of his government that, in fact, as I mentioned earlier, H.A.D. Oliver has said in his letter, in a straight quote, that this was "straight corruption." It should be prevented. That's a quote from H.A.D. Oliver.

I'd like to continue reading from those committee meeting minutes and then ask the Premier to comment on his recollection of the conversation. The committee meeting minutes…. This is, again, from Mr. Bruce: "I'm calling in my credits with these ministers and other government officials to use their full capacity to support Cowichan Tribes with the initiatives." Again, I'd ask the Premier: does he not recollect having a conversation with Mr. Bruce about funding for a proposal that he was going to bring forward to government?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think I've been clear about my recollection of the meeting. It was a number of years ago now, I think. My recollection is that we talked about the North American Indigenous Games. I know the Cowichan Tribe is very excited about having that. I know Mr. Bruce is very excited about them having it as well, as is the government.

I note that these allegations that have been brought forward by the opposition…. I think there is a review underway. The Cowichan Tribes themselves have said that the allegations are without foundation. I can tell you about my meeting with Mr. Bruce. I recall a meeting with Mr. Bruce. I recall discussing the North American Indigenous Games. I recall discussing the topic of reconciliation between first nations and non–first nations.

You know, British Columbia is celebrating its 150th anniversary. We're inviting indigenous athletes from all across North America to come to Cowichan Valley. I think there is a real opportunity there for all of us. I recall the discussion with regard to the Olympics and reconciliation that can take place as a result of an event like the Olympics and how we could use the Indigenous Games to be a sort of platform to move towards the Olympic opportunity.

That's my recollection. The Leader of the Opposition is welcome to read into the record what she claims are minutes from the Cowichan. I was not at the meetings. The Cowichan has called for the opposition to withdraw their allegations, so maybe they have concerns about what the minutes said. I don't know who took the minutes or whether the minutes are reflective of what took place at the meeting or not. I can talk about my recollection of what took place at a meeting that Mr. Bruce and I had about two years ago.

C. James: Yesterday we spent a fair bit of time with the Premier talking about lobbying and lobbyists who meet with his office. The Premier's quotes and discussion was that he meets with all kinds of citizens and doesn't check to see if they're registered as lobbyists,

and he doesn't actually take a look at the person's status under the lobbyists registry.

The Premier had two meetings, according to his calendar, with Mr. Bruce — one in July and one in January of '05 and '06. Can the Premier tell us what those meetings were about? Did he check to see whether Mr. Bruce was lobbying based on the existing conflict-of-interest rules?

Hon. G. Campbell: The recollections that I have refer to the meeting that I think the Leader of the Opposition has said was in January. I know it was a significant time ago. I can't recall the meeting in July. My expectation for the meeting in July or January was the same as every other meeting. I expect citizens to carry out their obligations under the laws of British Columbia.

The Chair: Leader of the Official Opposition, I will point out as well that we are here debating Vote 10, which is the Premier's estimates. If you could direct your questions related to the budget estimates of the Premier's office.

C. James: This is related directly to the Premier — meetings he has held in his office, his staff involvement, which therefore relates directly to the budget and dollars paid to his staff through the taxpayers.

I'd like to ask the Premier now about members of the executive council. The Premier, as we all know, is head of executive council and certainly should have some responsibility for their actions. So I'd like to ask the Premier: was he aware that Mr. Bruce was meeting with other members of cabinet?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I said yesterday, I am not aware of all of the meetings that cabinet ministers have or who they have them with. I know the opposition leader has an opportunity to secure their schedules if she feels that's something she would like to do.

I just go back. The events that the opposition leader is referring to were in 2006 and, evidently, 2005, for the 2005-06 budget year. This is estimates for 2008-09 that we're talking about now. If the Leader of the Opposition would like to pursue further lines of questioning about what took place at that time, I think there are ample opportunities for her to do that in other forums.

C. James: This is related. The Premier will think back to the beginning of this topic area. He'll remember I raised the H.A.D. Oliver letter, which in fact happened during this year, during this time of estimates, and was related to members of executive council of which this Premier is head. It directly relates to this Premier's office and to this year's estimates. So good try to try and push the questions off to another year, but in fact, it is directly related to the Premier and to the Premier's office.

I'd like to ask the Premier…. The Premier mentioned that he was excited about the North American Indigenous Games, as we all are. I'd like to ask then: didn't the Premier ask other ministers if they were meeting with Mr. Bruce related to the games?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm pleased that we have an estimates process in British Columbia where ministers can be asked specifically about whether they've had meetings with individuals or not. I am not aware of all of their schedules or what they've done.

I know the government has been a supporter of the North American Indigenous Games. We intend to be there this summer in celebration with the Cowichan First Nation and other first nations from across British Columbia.

The Chair: Just prior to recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition, I do want to again caution. We are here debating the estimates of the Premier's office. The relevance to your questions should reflect this debate.

C. James: I'd like to ask the Premier then: if members of his executive council — again, directly responsible to the Premier — were meeting with Mr. Bruce on the Indigenous Games during the 24-hour cooling-off period when Mr. Bruce was not supposed to be lobbying, does the Premier think those actions would have been appropriate?

Hon. G. Campbell: I do not know all the meetings that ministers of government have with outside individuals. The Leader of the Opposition or her members are welcome to ask ministers those questions themselves.

C. James: In fact, I wasn't asking the Premier about specific meetings. I was saying that if Graham Bruce happened to meet with ministers in government to talk about the North American Indigenous Games during the 24-month cooling-off period, does the Premier believe that that would be a problem?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's not appropriate to get into hypothetical situations. Ministers carry out their tasks and duties honourably. I'm sure everyone expects that of them, and I'm sure that's how they carry out their responsibilities.

C. James: Does the Premier believe that as Premier he is responsible for the actions of his ministers?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think that all of us who serve in government — MLAs, members of the executive council — are responsible to the people of British Columbia for our actions.

C. James: I'll ask the question, then, perhaps in a different way for the Premier to have an opportunity. All individuals are responsible for their actions. Does the Premier believe as head of executive council that he has a responsibility for the actions of people who report to him?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think every MLA has a responsibility to act appropriately. Every member of executive

council has a responsibility to act appropriately. I deal with any matters that may arise, as they arise.

C. James: Does the Premier believe that it's part of his job to ensure that executive council follows all of the rules around conflict of interest?

C. James: I'd like to ask the Premier then: if he was presented with evidence that showed that members of his cabinet had met with Mr. Bruce to discuss exactly the subject of Mr. Bruce's lobbying activities, what action would the Premier take?

The Chair: Members, the Chair will interject. It seems that we're dealing with a hypothetical situation here with the line of questioning. I do want to bring it back to the estimates of the Premier's office for this year's budget debate.

C. James: Then I'll give the specifics. This isn't a hypothetical situation. In fact, this is a specific situation. We have documents that we received regarding Graham Bruce's lobbying activities. As always, these were heavily severed documents, but we can see very clearly from the material….

This relates directly to the Premier's office. The Premier himself has said that his office…. He is responsible for his members following the Conflict of Interest Act. Therefore, this is directly related to the Premier's office and the Premier himself, as he's pointed out.

The materials we received clearly indicate that the then Aboriginal Relations Minister as well as the current Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts met with Mr. Bruce directly to discuss his work on behalf of the Cowichan Tribes. Does the Premier agree that this would be a conflict within the 24-month cooling-off period under the act?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the Leader of the Opposition understands that if she has an allegation to make with regard to a conflict of interest, whether it's with a minister or a member, then those allegations should be filed with the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, who is there to review those matters fully and in detail, not based on allegation but based on the facts that are before the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner. I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition will take advantage of those offices if she feels that's appropriate.

C. James: Yes, we will follow up, but I just want to refresh the Premier's understanding of the conflict act. Subsection 8(1) states:

Just for the Premier's clarification, even through the heavily severed documents that we received, it shows clearly that ministers were meeting with Mr. Bruce regarding his lobbying activities. I can read quotes from the e-mail if the Premier wishes. They show deputies giving orders to award contracts to further Mr. Bruce's representations. The minutes, as we know, as we read earlier, show Mr. Bruce boasting about meeting with the Premier and cabinet to discuss funding.

As we all know, it's nothing to do with the Indigenous Games. It's to do with Premier and cabinet taking forward very specific contracts in order to reward someone who is a former member of cabinet and who, according to the conflict-of-interest rules, is not able to work for the 24-month period. So my question, then, would be to the Premier. Do these e-mails and allegations — and we'll provide all the information to the Premier — concern him?

Hon. G. Campbell: The reason we have a conflict commissioner is so the conflict commissioner can review those matters in detail. If the Leader of the Opposition decides to submit that information to the conflict commissioner, I'm sure he will reach a conclusion and inform us all of his conclusions with regard to the matters at hand.

C. James: As we know, in the last report before retiring and in reviewing Mr. Bruce's actions, H.A.D. Oliver, former conflict commissioner, stated very clearly that the actions of executive council members who met with Mr. Bruce were subject to the act. Although the act didn't cover Mr. Bruce himself, as the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner pointed out, certainly members of executive council are covered.

Again, I'd like to give the Premier the opportunity to state that he agrees with Mr. Oliver and that he understands that if there are members of executive council that met with Mr. Bruce, that would be a very clear conflict with the act.

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't presume to substitute my assessment for the commissioner's. If the Leader of the Opposition has an allegation to make and would like the commissioner to review it, I'm sure he will oblige her.

The Chair: Again, the Chair, I believe, has given great leeway in the questioning here during the estimates of the Premier's office. I am going to again caution the Leader of the Opposition to ask relevant questions in these budget estimates.

C. James: I'll move on to another piece related to the Premier's office and related specifically to an initiative of the Premier. Again, as we pass on the Conflict of Interest Act, we now see once again that we have a Premier that isn't concerned about the Conflict of Interest Act to

add to the lobbyists registry and everything else that we've talked about over the last couple of days.

I'd like to take some time now to canvass the federal aid package and the Premier's round table on forestry. As we know, back in January '08 the Prime Minister announced a billion-dollar package aimed to help Canada's single-industry communities that had been hit. B.C.'s share of that is $129 million, as we know. We know that the Premier's office has intergovernmental relations and certainly that the Premier himself, as he's said many times, was actively involved in all of this. He certainly announced the round table personally as the Premier's round table.

We've heard the Forests Minister talk about aid to communities throughout this entire time. I'd like to ask the Premier: can he confirm that the aid program in place is funded by federal dollars?

Hon. G. Campbell: The $129 million for the community development fund is a federal fund provided by taxpayers.

C. James: Could the Premier tell me who was involved in negotiating this aid package from his office and across government?

Hon. G. Campbell: With regard to these issues, the Prime Minister talks with Premiers across the country. I think it's important to note that the Prime Minister was responding to concerns which were raised in all parts of the country with regard to the impact of the rapidly rising Canadian dollar and the challenges that that was placing on all of our manufacturing industries across the country. In Canada, obviously, different parts of the country have different economies where they may be using those dollars.

The announcement was made prior to meeting with the Premiers in Ottawa in January. The Prime Minister announced the $1 billion in New Brunswick. As I say, different provinces will use those resources. He announced that our share of that would be $129 million. In discussing that with the Prime Minister, I was clear with the Prime Minister that that $129 million would be going to the forest industry in the province of British Columbia to help mitigate the challenges that we are facing both with the rising dollar and the falling markets that were taking place in the United States.

C. James: Could the Premier tell me when those first discussions started with the Prime Minister around this aid package?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't tell you when the first discussions were that the Prime Minister may have had. I have ongoing discussions with the Prime Minister with regard to challenges we face and opportunities we have in British Columbia. My goal and objective with the federal government is to try to find alignment between taxpayer resources at the federal level and taxpayer resources at the provincial level to maximize the benefits for the people who live in British Columbia.

I actually can't recall the number of times that I've met with the Prime Minister over the last couple of years, but on every occasion we've talked about the forest industry. We've talked about the challenges that are presented by the pine beetle. We've talked about the opportunity of British Columbia and Alberta working in concert to deal with the challenges of the pine beetle. We've talked about the impact that the pine beetle can have on the national forest strategy. We've talked about the challenges that we face with regard to the rapidly rising Canadian dollar. I think that likely was months before the Prime Minister made his announcement in January.

C. James: I appreciate that the Premier has many conversations with the Prime Minister and is in discussions on an ongoing basis. So just a specific question, then. I'm sure the Premier didn't negotiate the amount of money or the specifics around the dollars coming to British Columbia himself, so who in his office liaised or did the negotiations around the agreement and the aid package that came to B.C. from the federal government?

Hon. G. Campbell: I was the one that met directly with the Prime Minister with regard to these matters. The Prime Minister made the decision. It wasn't a decision that was negotiated. He made the decision that the federal government would be providing a billion dollars. The federal government made the decision.

That billion dollars would be distributed on a per-capita basis across the country. In British Columbia I made the decision that it would be going to the forest industry and was clear with the Prime Minister that that's where we would be putting our share of that billion dollars.

In Ontario they are likely facing a different set of decisions, and I don't know that they've even got to the conclusion of how they're going to allocate the resources that they may receive from the billion-dollar community fund that the federal government established.

It was clear from the outset what we were going to do with our share of those dollars in British Columbia. I think that when the announcement was made, I was clear with the Prime Minister where those dollars would go. We were clear with the province where it was going to come.

The issue of negotiations was simply to say to the federal government and encourage them, frankly, to pass the billion dollars as quickly as possible. I was one of the Premiers who said that we encouraged the federal government to pass that as quickly as possible — not to wait for all of the issues that may confront the federal government. We felt the $129 million could be used quickly for the forest industries in British Columbia. That's what we have tried to secure, and that's why we've acted on the $129 million today.

C. James: Does the Premier believe that B.C. got its fair share of that billion dollars?

Hon. G. Campbell: The federal government decided that in this particular case they were going to distribute the resources on a per-capita basis across the country.

C. James: Does the Premier believe that was a fair way of allocating that billion dollars?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can tell you that I said at the time…. There's always an opportunity to invest more, but I feel that to have the $129 million is, frankly, better than to negotiate for a long term and maybe get less and maybe get a little more. We felt we needed the resources immediately. Per-capita funding at the federal level is something that actually does serve British Columbia's interests.

British Columbia is no longer a have-not province. Therefore, when we have per-capita funding, it isn't subject to the normal allocations that sometimes take place between equalization provinces and non-equalization provinces. We were pleased to have the per-capita funding available, and I think that we have applied that to the forest industry to try and help meet some of the challenges that it faces.

C. James: I think many of the forest communities that have been hard-hit would question the Premier's understanding that $129 million was sufficient and that B.C. got its fair share, when we take a look at how hard-hit British Columbia has been by pine beetle, etc. So I think the public might have some disagreement with the Premier around his view on that one.

I'd like to ask the Premier: when did the $129 million arrive in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Campbell: I will try and discover from Finance when we received the resources.

I do think it's important to note that this is a national program. The community development fund was established by the federal government to meet the national challenge. So while I'm the first to admit that British Columbia's forest industry has been hard-hit, in fact, if the Leader of the Opposition talked to Ontario, she'd find out that their forest industry has been harder-hit. If she talked to Quebec, she'd find that their forest industry has been harder-hit.

What we have said is: "Let's take the $129 million. Let's apply it as quickly as we can to encourage workers, to provide support for older workers, to provide for tuition support, to provide for community stability as we get through this very difficult time."

That was our understanding of what the community development fund was put in place for by the federal government. When the federal government does say that there are resources to be made available from the taxpayers at the federal level back down to the provincial level, often they want to be sure there is an agreement in place that meets the requirements of the program they have established.

We have confirmed that all of our allocations meet the requirements of that program. The Prime Minister was made aware of that, I think, during our conversations in January — that that's where I expected those resources to go in British Columbia — and I think that has been critical.

That does not mean that there are not challenges in front of us in British Columbia. We recognize that. It's why we're investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the forest industry with British Columbia tax resources. We're complementing those with the federal government resources.

C. James: I think that once again, we see why the forest industry is in such crisis in this province. The Forests Minister says there's nothing he can do, the Finance Minister says we're simply spectators, and now the Premier says: "It's worse in other places, so just don't worry about it." I'd suggest that the Premier spend a little more time out in forest communities.

Can the Premier please tell me why the provincial government has not matched that $129 million coming from the federal government?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the Leader of the Opposition will know, we have been investing hundreds of millions of dollars in British Columbia to try and meet some of the challenges of change that the forest industry is confronted with — not just the $185 million for the northern development initiative; $50 million for the Interior development initiative; $161 million for the Forests for Tomorrow program; $120 million, including $90 million for highway rehabilitation, maintaining Forest Service roads, and to improve and restore rural municipalities roads; and $17 million for Geoscience B.C. to try and expand opportunities for those communities that are being hit by the pine beetle.

We have invested $25 million in bioenergy in the province of British Columbia. We've invested millions of dollars in research and over a hundred million dollars to help spread control. All of those are intended to help our forest communities in the province not just stabilize some of their jobs but to have a future.

Having said that, no one is pretending that we're not facing a difficult challenge in the forest industry in British Columbia. In fact, we think we are. That's why we've tried to focus our resources on workers, on workers' ability to bridge this gap and to provide for communities the kinds of resources they need to stabilize the communities through the next challenging months in the forest industry in B.C.

C. James: I heard the Premier list a whole range of programs, and then he mentioned that they're focused on forest workers. Could the Premier please identify within all of those programs that he listed — paid for by provincial money, he says — which programs an individual forest worker could apply to?

Hon. G. Campbell: Many of those programs are aimed at providing opportunities for people in the forest industry to find work. For example, I think that reforestation projects provide people in the forest industry with opportunities to find work. There are opportunities in other industries, as well, that will allow forest workers to find work that will be long-term and sustainable for

With regard to the community development fund, I believe it's in the order of $85 million that's available for older forest workers to decide that they would like to bridge to retirement. The thrust behind that was to try and say to people: "If you're planning to retire in the next few months and you're wondering what's going to happen to you now…." We wanted them to know that we would help them with a bridge to get there. They can stabilize their future in their communities and have the kind of plan to carry out their lives the way they'd wanted to.

The tuition fund that is available is available specifically for workers to upgrade their skills. It's one of the things that workers have told us in the past that they would look for the opportunity to do.

The stabilization fund is, again, for opportunities for work during this difficult time. It's to provide economic opportunity in communities where people are living.

C. James: Just to be specific, so that I'm sure of what the Premier is saying. Certainly, I understand that tuition resources…. We'll get into that in a little bit more depth as we go on. I understand that's federal money. I'm asking the Premier about provincial money, specifically provincial programs, to assist displaced workers.

Could the Premier clarify which of those programs are provincially funded programs that workers could apply to? Was he mistaken in saying that the tuition issues were provincial money, and in fact, they're federal dollars?

I don't want there to be any confusion. The $129 million — that's the federal community development trust money. We made the decision that we were going to focus those resources on workers. The $17.25 million is for tuition to help workers go through this difficult time and take, if they would like, the opportunity to upgrade their skills. We also have $85.5 million specifically desired for workers.

Again, that was a decision we made so that we could complement the existing provincial programs to try and enhance the forest industry and the long-term opportunities in the forest industry, to deal with the challenges of the pine beetle, to stabilize rural communities that have been dependent on the vast pine forests in British Columbia, which we all know now has been severely damaged by the pine beetle. The $26.25 million from that fund is put in place to try and stabilize communities and to allow them to find, if you want, the potential job opportunities and those sorts of things that can help them stabilize.

As is happening today, representatives from the Economic Development Ministry are currently in Mackenzie and Fort St. James, talking specifically with those communities about how we can help them bridge these difficult challenges for themselves and their families. Those are from the federal resources.

What we felt in receiving the federal resources was that we should use them to complement the already existing hundreds of millions of dollars that the province was investing in forestry and in forest communities to enhance the opportunities in forestry for the long term in British Columbia.

With that in mind, I would 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.