Hansard — Tuesday, May 27, 2008 p.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


Introductions by Members		12965

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		12965
	Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill M216)
	J. Horgan
	Victims of Crime Compensation Act, 2008 (Bill M217)
	M. Farnworth

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		12966
	Health risks for firefighters
	R. Cantelon
	Women's Campaign School
	S. Hammell
	Accessible playground in Coquitlam
	I. Black
	Haida Heritage Centre
	G. Coons
	Green-powered street light in Steveston
	J. Yap
	Doug Stead
	D. Thorne

Oral Questions		12968
	Premier's compliance with conflict-of-interest guidelines
	G. Gentner
	Hon. M. de Jong
	L. Krog
	J. Horgan
	Government support for forest workers
	C. Trevena
	Hon. C. Hansen
	K. Conroy
	B. Simpson
	Funding for Buy B.C. program
	C. Evans
	Hon. P. Bell
	Respite services for disabled children
	N. Simons
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Funding for cultural curriculum in B.C. schools
	J. Kwan
	Hon. S. Bond

Petitions		12973
	B. Simpson
	L. Krog

Tabling Documents		12973
	Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, annual report, 2007

Petitions		12974
	S. Fraser
	R. Chouhan
	G. Coons

Committee of the Whole House		12974
	Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 25) (continued)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	A. Dix

Reporting of Bills		12985
	Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 25)

Third Reading of Bills		12985
	Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 25)

Second Reading of Bills		12985
	Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 26) (continued)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Patient Care Quality Review Board Act (Bill 41)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	A. Dix
	R. Chouhan

Committee of the Whole House		12995
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act (Bill 18) (continued)
	G. Robertson
	Hon. B. Penner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		13005
	Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)
	C. James
	Hon. G. Campbell

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm very pleased to introduce to the Legislature today His Excellency Yong Gaun Koh, High Commissioner of Singapore to Canada. The high commissioner is based in Singapore, where he is the chairman of the Central Provident Fund Board.

Accompanying him is Mr. Chin Kwok Foo, consul general of Singapore based in Vancouver. I ask the House to make them both feel very welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: Today I had the pleasure of having lunch with four residents of the Comox Valley: David Lewis, who is the executive director of the Truck Loggers Association, and his son Sterling, and Mark Fisher and his son Liam. They are seated in the gallery now.

The interesting thing is that David actually bought a package of having lunch with me at a Rotary auction — actually paid money to a charity to have lunch with me. So would the House please join me in making them feel very welcome.

J. Horgan presented a bill intituled Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2008.

J. Horgan: I move introduction of the Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2008, and that it be read a first time now.

J. Horgan: I am pleased to once again introduce the Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act. This bill establishes clear conflict-of-interest rules for public officeholders.

It takes two major steps to change the existing members' act, including extending the provisions of the act to deputy ministers and government appointees, including ministerial staff and advisers to those in charge of the public sector entities. These appointees will be prohibited from improperly benefiting from their office, and it would prohibit them from operating a business, taking another job or office or serving as a consultant while holding a public appointment.

The bill will also oblige members of cabinet, parliamentary secretaries and deputy ministers to place their assets in a blind trust while they hold that position, in place of the existing reporting provisions. This provision arises out of the ruling last year where the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner suggested that such a change be made.

This would bring British Columbia legislation in line with conflict legislation at the federal level and will assure British Columbians that officeholders in B.C. are fully accountable for their actions.

In his last report to the Legislature, outgoing Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner H.A.D. Oliver stated the following: "Recent experience indicates that consideration be given to the inclusion of political staff, including ministerial assistants, chief of staff in the office of the Premier and deputy ministers in the list of persons subject to the Conflict of Interest Act."

I couldn't imagine a better endorsement, but Mr. Oliver goes further and recommends that government deal with the substance of my proposed legislation as a matter of public business.

Absent any government initiative on this matter, I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M216, Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

M. Farnworth presented a bill intituled Victims of Crime Compensation Act, 2008.

M. Farnworth: I call the Victims of Crime Compensation Act, 2008, and I move first reading now.

M. Farnworth: It's a devastating and emotionally jarring experience to be harmed by another's criminal act. It's senseless and profoundly unfair that innocent people die and are seriously injured simply because of such unfortunate circumstances beyond their control.

While programs and services are in place to rehabilitate criminals and those who conduct criminal acts, to protect the public from being victims of crime, we need to be doing more. This act recognizes the importance that many people don't just get up and go back to work the next day after being a victim of a violent criminal act. This act recognizes the emotional trauma and long-term physical pain that many people experience when these systems fail. Victims and families deserve to be recognized and to have programs in place that can assist them through their traumatic ordeal.

Hon. Speaker, what this act does is put in place a system similar to what exists in the province of Quebec whereby victims of crime and their families are eligible to take up to a two-year unpaid leave of absence from their work and not have to worry about returning to their place of employment — that they are able to do so.

This recognizes the trauma that many people go through. It recognizes that you don't just get up and go back to work the next day. The process of healing can take a considerable amount of time, and worrying whether you're able to return to your place of employment should not be part of that trauma.

This act has come about through a lot of work and consultation with victims of crime groups. I'm very proud to stand here and table it in this House today. It's time that we recognized victims' rights.

I move that this bill be placed on the order paper for second reading after today.

Bill M217, Victims of Crime Compensation Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

R. Cantelon: I rise today in the House to talk about the respect both sides of this House have for the commitment and bravery that our firefighters show on a daily basis in our communities. The events that have unfolded in Prince George in the last day and a half frankly make the words that I've prepared pretty trivial.

The industrial fire that they're facing is the worst type, the worst case of fires that firefighters have to face. The fumes are toxic, and they recognize that going to a fire like this puts them at risk immediately and in the long run. The toxic fumes that they are exposed to, both in breathing and through the skin, are the worst kind of exposure that a firefighter has. Yet up there every firefighter meets the call, and they're there on duty bravely fighting that fire. We should all salute them today for what they do.

It was a very happy event, in addressing those concerns, that today the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services announced a future extension, which began in March 2005, of coverage of cancers that are a result of long-term exposure to these kinds of risks. Effective immediately, testicular cancer has been added to the list that doesn't require justification for treatment. Today we, the government, announced that lung cancer in non-smokers would also be covered.

I can speak confidently. These resolutions were passed unanimously by both sides of the House, and I'm sure we can look forward to their support.

I'd also like to acknowledge the hard work of the executive of the firefighters that have brought these things to pass. Secretary-treasurer Harold Hoyming, vice-president Tim Baillie and president Al Leier have been working hard to achieve these benefits for their members.

In my constituency Chad Parker, Ron Daley, Brian Wood, Mike Rispin and Bill Eggers have been tireless in persisting forward with the case to make this for all firefighters. So let's all support what the firefighters have been doing.

S. Hammell: There's a unique school tooling up this weekend that addresses a unique problem. The non-partisan Women's Campaign School will be held at SFU Harbour Centre, with the opening reception being hosted at the home of a former member of this House, Joy MacPhail.

This school is the longest-running school of its kind in Canada that teaches women the skills to run successful election campaigns. I have spent time in North Africa and in the Middle East working with women candidates who are trying to find their voice in the political system. Every time I speak about women's participation outside of Canada, I am clear that my home country does not have an exemplary record around including women in our political culture.

In Canada women constitute 51 percent of the population, yet the number of women elected to positions across Canada remains less than 25 percent. This Legislature just breaks 20 percent, and we have never elected, in an at-large election, a woman as Premier of a province or as Prime Minister. This record does not put us anywhere near the top of the list of countries that acknowledge that the way for women to be recognized is through a collective voice heard within the circles of government.

The Women's Campaign School hopes to encourage and inspire women to assume leadership roles in political life. Some of the courses include campaign strategies and securing the nomination, and some of the speakers include our current Minister of State for Childcare, who has always been a strong supporter of this school, and Penny Priddy, former B.C. NDP MLA and cabinet minister. Both are honorary chairs of this school.

This school is one important strategy to address the lack of women's voices. Let's wish all the women participating in that school much success.

I. Black: On June 19 in my riding there's going to be a very, very special ribbon cutting. We're going to open a park, a very special park. It's special for two reasons. It's special because of those who will use it, and it's special because of those who made it a reality.

Carlie Collins came home from teaching one day, musing that one of her students was left out from one of the most important things that children do — play. So she turned to an organization in our community that has a long and proud history of proving their motto, "Serving the community's greatest need."

The Kinette and Kinsmen members of Coquitlam formed a plan that involved the provincial and municipal government and then took on a mission of ensuring that the mentally and physically challenged are included in our community, in their community.

The Coquitlam Kin Accessible Playground at Towne Centre in Coquitlam will do just that. Children who are physically or mentally challenged will have

the use of playground facilities specifically designed to their specific needs. Children of all ages and abilities will have the opportunity to play together in this inclusive playground.

Whether children are visually impaired, autistic or paraplegic, the equipment design of this safe and accessible playground will cater to everybody. In fact, it'll even provide opportunities for parents in wheelchairs to play alongside their able-bodied kids.

It will include high-back swings with straps, a circuit with high and low points, and two ramp accesses. Additional features include transfer points to help people using wheelchairs and a creative marine structure with a variety of strength and ability options.

The Kinette and Kinsmen members and the clubs have a long, long history of community service in Coquitlam, raising funds for everything from Eagle Ridge Hospital to Big Brothers Big Sisters and the Kinsmen Foundation itself, to name but a few. This is yet another permanent reminder of the importance of this organization and the tireless efforts that they show day after day.

I'd like you to join me in saluting them for their ingenuity, their tenacity, their compassion and their citizenship. Let's hope the kids have fun too.

G. Coons: I don't think there is anything more refreshing than having a moment to speak about an exciting event that is happening in one of my communities. I'd like to take the opportunity to talk about the grand opening of the Haida Heritage Centre at Qay'llnagaay, which will take place on August 23 in Skidegate.

The 53,000-square-foot centre replicates a traditional Haida seaside village, the village of Qay'llnagaay, or the sea lion town, which once stood on the site. It's a series of longhouses connected by interior walkways and atrium spaces.

As the location of the newly expanded Haida Gwaii museum, with its many exhibits and artifacts, this expansive multipurpose centre houses a multitude of cultural treasures. Exhibits featured in the museum deal with contact and conflict, the potlatch and the repatriation story, as well as a tree gallery and natural history exhibits.

Even far more breathtaking is a canoe house, home to the Lootaas, a 50-foot Haida war canoe carved by the late Bill Reid for Expo 86 and paddled from Vancouver to Skidegate, as well as its modern sister the Looplex, which is made of fibreglass.

If you like food, as I've noticed most of us in the House do, you'll be as excited as I am to visit the eating house where visitors learn about the preparation, presentation and preservation of traditional foods as well as a chance to try delicious Haida cuisine.

Even if these were the only services located in the centre, there's plenty more to get excited about. One of the most intriguing and exciting parts of the centre is a carving shed, which gives Haida carvers the opportunity to work on larger monumental projects such as canoes and totem poles. In the last three years, three dugout canoes were carved from start to finish.

I'd like to join the Skidegate band Chief Councillor Willard Wilson in praising the Haida Heritage Centre and welcoming you, my colleagues, and people from across the province to its grand opening on August 23. I'm sure you'll be stunned not only by the beauty and magnitude of the centre and the culture it showcases but also by the warmth of Haida hospitality. You'll be sure to get a big Haida thank you, Há'waa, from all the Haida.

J. Yap: They say an ill wind blows no good, but in my riding of Richmond-Steveston the wind, whether it is ill or not, can blow good things. As members know, everyone is trying to do their part to reduce greenhouse gases and help our environment. My community of Richmond is at the forefront of changes to help us become carbon-neutral.

On May 14 a street light was erected in Garry Point Park in Steveston, which will be powered 100 percent by green energy sources. The technology used will be a combination of solar and wind power that will send the power to a battery pack, lighting a 70-watt LED light from dawn to dusk — the same amount of power provided by a standard light. The system lighting the park is called the Innoair 600PV, and it's from the Vancouver-based company Innovative Air Solutions.

Although there are some solar-powered systems in place around the province, this is the first wind-solar hybrid to be tested in Canada. As we know all too well, southern B.C. can count on wind more often than sun. In fact, after testing this light for several months, it will be determined whether or not this light could function with only wind power.

Most people look at green alternatives as more expensive, but these lights come at a price which is 25 percent less than the standard street light. They also do not require any electrical cables, no proximity to a power grid, and have longer-lasting lights attached. The elimination of cables is predicted to cut down on metal thieves tampering with infrastructure. The testing of this light will continue for the next few months, and if successful, these lights could be popping up in other important Richmond locations and, hopefully, expanded to other B.C. communities.

Thank you to Michael McLennan, co-owner of Innovative Air Solutions; Richmond city council and Mayor Malcolm Brodie; and Robert Gonzalez, general manager of engineering and public works, for this innovative green alternative for all British Columbians today and in the future.

D. Thorne: I rise today to talk about Coquitlam entrepreneur and outspoken child abuse activist Doug Stead, who has just been invited to be the keynote speaker at the University of Cork in Ireland at a conference dealing with child abuse and the role that tech-

nology plays in its proliferation. The message that Stead brings is that we are in the midst of a global pandemic. His area of expertise is around how pedophiles use technology and how they are early adopters of this technology.

Stead owns Coquitlam's Tri-M Systems, a very successful high-tech firm. He says that people like him have been inventing and making a lot of money on technology but that some of the earliest adopters of technology are the criminal elements. Because of this, he says that all the people who have been making lots of money and doing well in technology should maintain, as he does, a personal obligation towards combatting this criminal element — the people who use technology to exploit young children.

Frustrated by what he perceived as the total inaction on the part of law enforcement and government at the time, Stead established the organization Entrepreneurs Against Pedophiles with six other tri-city entrepreneurs about two decades ago. This group has funded on-line training of RCMP officers and published a child's life skills book, which has also been used to help with psychological profiling in the prison system. They have worked extensively with municipal, provincial and federal law enforcement.

Doug Stead is also working alongside corporations like the Bill Gates Foundation, Visa and Mastercard in trying to make the public more aware of these serious issues. He believes that increased public awareness will result in the kind of political awareness that is necessary to bring more resources to the allocation of prevention, deterrence and treatment. Government attention and the allocation of resources are necessary for future generations to have better life outcomes.

G. Gentner: Sometime between May and July of 2005, the Premier bought shares in Terra Energy Corp. The Premier's Terra shares were not held in a blind trust or a non-self-directed mutual fund or RRSP plan. On October 26, 2005, while holding shares in Terra Energy, the Premier signed order-in-council 787, which gave potential tax breaks for pipeline developments to companies like Terra Energy. The Premier later sold his shares in Terra for a profit.

Can the Premier tell this House what steps he took, if any, so that he was not in a conflict of interest when he signed order-in-council 787?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. If the member has an allegation he wishes to make, he can avail himself of the Office of the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, which is there to serve all members of the House and which all members of the government abide by strictly.

G. Gentner: As a legislator in British Columbia, I find the time line here somewhat troubling. It appears that the Premier bought shares in a company, brought in tax breaks for that company and then sold his shares for a profit.

My question to the Premier is: who did the Premier clear this apparent conflict with before signing the order-in-council?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can assure the hon. member that the Premier and every single member of this government and this government caucus take their obligations pursuant to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act very seriously and abide by those requirements.

G. Gentner: If the Premier takes it seriously, why won't he stand up here and defend these so-called allegations?

G. Gentner: We're talking about the highest office in this province. The highest office in this province cannot be compromised. When questions were raised by my colleague the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca about the Premier's handling of Alcan when holding shares in the company, the Premier said then that it was all okay because those shares were part of an RSP. His excuse was that someone else was managing his Alcan shares, but that wasn't the case with his Terra shares.

So I'll ask the Premier again. Why didn't the Premier protect himself and British Columbians by placing his Terra shares in a blind trust?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member has quickly crossed the threshold and begun to make allegations. If he has allegations to make, he should first of all avail himself of the proper avenue and take the matter to the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, an office that serves all members of this chamber. Instead he chooses, as is typical of this member and this opposition, to make allegations — unsubstantiated allegations.

Hon. M. de Jong: I can assure the member and every member of this House that this Premier and each member of this government understand their obligations under the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and abide by those obligations.

L. Krog: Well, if the Premier takes his obligations seriously, then he should answer this House. The

Members' Conflict of Interest Act is clear. It states: "…a member has an apparent conflict of interest if there is a reasonable perception, which a reasonably well informed person could properly have, that the member's ability to exercise an official power or perform an official duty or function must have been affected by his or her private interest."

The Premier's decision to sign an order-in-council that benefited Terra Energy certainly appears to, at the very least, give a perception of a perceived conflict of interest. So the simple question to the Premier is: why did he sign that OIC knowing that he held shares in Terra Energy?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I can actually understand this member's hesitation to make these sorts of allegations in writing or to pursue them with the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, because each time he has done so in the past, he has failed. Each time he has done so in the past, he has been the recipient of a withering attack in reply from an officer of the Legislature or someone as esteemed as the deputy to the Attorney General.

So if the member has an allegation to make, there is a route available to him and to the opposition to make it. Their refusal to avail themselves of that option tells me that they are more interested in what they have done throughout the life of this parliament, and that is rake muck and besmirch the reputation of individuals.

I can assure this House that this Premier and this government take their obligations under the act seriously.

L. Krog: I would have thought that this government wouldn't welcome another investigation to be added to the lengthy list already.

L. Krog: The Premier bought shares in Terra. Then he signed an OIC bringing in tax breaks for pipelines, which increased the profits of companies exactly like Terra. Then he sold his shares. How can the Premier claim he's not in a conflict?

Hon. M. de Jong: The recurring theme from not just this member but this opposition is that they want to be the judge, jury and executioner. It must be….

Hon. M. de Jong: It must be remarkably inconvenient for the hon. member to have to come to terms with the fact that there is a legislative officer called the members' Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, who is in place to address matters such as this. Now, I understand that it is inconvenient, especially when you've got the record of this member of constant failure, but the member….

Hon. M. de Jong: If the member has an allegation that he would like to make and to be taken seriously, then perhaps he should begin by availing himself of that. In the meantime, I again assure all members of the House that this Premier and this government take their obligations seriously under the act and fulfil their obligations under the act.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to hear from the minister of defence, who when on this side of the House had no qualms about making allegations about anything that passed between his ears. What we're doing today….

As the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner has told me and other members of this House, individuals are accountable for their actions. The office is there to receive information, dispense with it and put it into disclosure so that the public has an understanding of what individuals are doing.

In this instance we have the Premier signing an order-in-council, making a private company more profitable — a company that he held shares in. Six months after signing the order-in-council, he disposed of those shares — presumably making a profit. In anyone's understanding and in Mr. Hughes's understanding of the act, that is an apparent conflict.

So my question is to the Premier. Will he stand in this place and defend himself and tell us why he signed the order-in-council to make his company more profitable?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member wonders why he and his colleagues aren't taken seriously. It is because time and time again, they make these spurious allegations within the confines of this chamber where they enjoy a privilege that doesn't exist outside those doors.

If the member wants to make that kind of allegation, make it outside. File the complaint. In the meantime, understand that each member of this government abides by their obligations under this act, including the Premier.

J. Horgan: Individual members in this House are accountable for their actions. My question through you, hon. Speaker, to the Premier is: was he aware when he signed order-in-council 787 that he had shares in Terra Energy and that signing that order-in-council made

that company more profitable and, therefore, shareholders more money? Was he aware of that when he signed the order-in-council — yes or no?

Hon. M. de Jong: Typically, this member does not want to be accountable for taking the appropriate step and filing that assertion with the officer that is appointed by each and every member of this House. Why? Because it's far more convenient politically to stand in this chamber and make spurious allegations, as they have time and time again. That's why British Columbians don't take this member or this opposition seriously.

C. Trevena: North Island College has just announced its involvement in retraining forest workers who have been thrown out of work because of this government's inaction. Under the government scheme, each worker is allowed up to $5,000, which is a one-time payment for just one year. But if a person needs to upgrade to get on to a retraining program, the money just covers the upgrade costs, or if the training program runs two years, they won't be eligible to get any costs covered in the second year.

I'd like to ask the minister responsible whether he'll guarantee that people who have lost their jobs due to this government's complete failure to manage the forest industry at least get fully compensated for all upgrading and retraining they need to get the job.

Hon. C. Hansen: I am very pleased that we have this program that has been rolled out in a matter of only a few days. I compliment the public servants that have worked tirelessly to make sure that this program is available to forest workers around the province as we speak.

They can go on line and apply for these funds. It does provide them with up to $5,000 for covering tuition costs for programs of their choosing around the province, so it is a big plus. We've had great feedback from forest workers who recognize that it's going to help them get access to training that they would not have got access to otherwise.

C. Trevena: We are actually talking about a one-time payment for one year, and we're talking about people who live in rural communities. I'm not sure that the minister realizes this. This government has not just mismanaged the forest industry; it's also slashed funding to the higher education, which means there is less college funding available. So for North Island College, we've seen cuts that have particularly hit hard the Port Hardy campus, which means people would have to go to Campbell River or further south.

I'd like to ask the minister whether he will commit to ensure that the forest workers already displaced from their industry receive compensation for travel to their retraining and for the accommodation they would need for their retraining, so they can take full advantage of any retraining package.

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, just to correct the member, North Island College has not received a cut. They are receiving more money in this fiscal year from the provincial government than they've ever received in the history of this province.

Hon. C. Hansen: So we are working to make sure that forest workers who have been displaced from the industry around the province get access to tuition support. They get access to bridging to retirement if that's what's important to them, or they get access to short-term jobs in forest-dependent communities around the province.

That's what this government is working for — working to support displaced forest workers and at the same time making sure that we work around the world to improve markets for B.C. forest products so those workers are going to be back at work at the earliest possible opportunity.

K. Conroy: According to the community development assistance program for unemployed forestry workers, the definition of a forestry worker is one who's been impacted on or after May 1, 2007. What about the unemployed forestry workers who were affected prior to that date? What about the workers who were affected when the current crisis started in the fall of 2006? What program is this minister going to offer to those workers, who were some of the first to suffer for some of this government's forest policies?

Hon. C. Hansen: We recognize that there are some forest communities going through transition around the province. That is exactly why this government put in place $185 million for the Northern Development Trust. That's exactly why this government put in place $50 million for the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust and $50 million for the Island Coastal Economic Trust — to make sure that those communities can actually map out their economic future, to create new jobs and new industries and new opportunity

K. Conroy: Let's take a look at some of those communities: New Westminster, Powell River, Port Alberni, Prince George, Midway, Mission, Vernon, Lumby, Squamish, Nanaimo, Maple Ridge, Kelowna, Lytton.

Only some of the communities in this province were affected? All of those communities — all of them — have forestry workers who were affected prior to May 1, 2007. They don't qualify for the federal government funding, and most of them don't qualify for the other funding that you're talking about….

These workers are being left out in the cold. This government — what are they going to do about it? Is this just collateral damage, and you're just going to let them suffer for your policies?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, if you look at some of the unemployment rates around the province…. Let's go back to 1998 in the Kootenays, when the unemployment rate was 12 percent.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the opposition may want to listen closely, because these are important numbers that they should actually pay attention to. In 1998 in the Kootenays, the unemployment rate was 12 percent. The latest unemployment rate, for April of 2008, was 2.5 percent.

Let's take the Vancouver Island region. The member for North Island was asking the question earlier.

Hon. C. Hansen: In 1998 the unemployment rate was 9.7 percent, and today it's 4.6 percent. I could use example after example, region by region where the unemployment rates are dramatically lower today than they were during the 1990s.

People are getting jobs in British Columbia today. We know that some forest families are suffering. That's exactly why we're working with them. We're getting them tuition support. We're supporting those communities, and we're going to make sure that they, too, can enjoy the dynamic economic prosperity that we see in British Columbia today.

B. Simpson: I wonder what the unemployment rate is in Mackenzie or Fort St. James or Chetwynd or Midway or Campbell River. I wonder why we're not getting those statistics. This minister keeps talking about these trusts that no forest worker can apply to, and the minister knows it full well.

The minister stated twice in this House that the Premier directed that every dollar of the $129 million from the federal government go to forest workers. But the minister must know that $11 million, at least, will go to overhead costs. That's $11 million that is not going to forest workers.

The $118 million that's left, the minister knows, is a paltry sum relative to the need that's out there for forestry families and for communities — paltry. This government has abandoned forest workers who lost their jobs. How else would you describe it to cut the date off…?

B. Simpson: How else would you describe it — to cut off workers before May 1, 2007? That is shameful. Surely the Premier must see…

B. Simpson: …that this fund is inadequate. Will he commit today to put provincial resources to this crisis?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, just to continue on with some of the regions around the province. This member for Cariboo North will be interested in knowing that in 1998, the unemployment rate in the Cariboo was 14.5 percent. Here we are ten years later, and the unemployment rate is down to 7.7 percent.

Hon. C. Hansen: The difference between the opposition and the government is that we are travelling around this province bringing hope to forest workers around British Columbia. The opposition members

are going into communities and spreading fear and spreading lack of hope about the future, when in fact those communities have good futures.

We're going to support them. We're going to work with those forest workers, and we're going to bring them some reason to be optimistic about the future.

B. Simpson: What this government is spreading is false hope. This minister said in this House today…

B. Simpson: …that this program has been rolled out. I phoned Enquiry B.C. today. They told me that the office hasn't even opened yet, and all they can do is refer people to the webpage. It's the same dead end. The Minister of Forests says that it was supposed to go live November 15. The government has known for five months of getting this program, and they still don't have a plan. They still don't have a strategy. The minister knows full well from the discussions that are occurring with industry and workers that this fund is not enough. They know that full well.

So my question is to the Premier. Rather than cutting workers off May 1 of 2007, will the Premier make sure that every forest worker that needs it is eligible for this fund, every community that needs it is eligible for this fund? Will the Premier top this fund up so that this crisis is addressed by this province as well as the federal government?

Hon. C. Hansen: In less than seven days after this fund was rolled out, we had an on-line system where individual forest workers could go and apply for tuition assistance. That is active now. That is working now.

In less than five days after this was announced, we had officials from the Ministry of Economic Development, from the Ministry of Forests, from the Ministry of Community Services, who were in the communities of Mackenzie and the community of Fort St. James working with those communities to make sure that these dollars can flow as fast as possible to the benefit of those individual forest workers.

C. Evans: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. StatsCan now says that British Columbia is the only province west of the Maritimes to lose money in agriculture last year. We lost $117 million. The minister — to his credit, I think — said that it would be a good idea to stop being commodity producers, aim for a niche and brand our products to sell to ourselves.

You know, hon. Speaker, I've been trying to get Buy B.C. back for a long time. The minister has got hundreds — the Minister of Finance too…. You probably have file cabinets full of people asking for Buy B.C. back. The farmers want it back. Investment Agriculture said that they want it back.

I suspect that the reason we can't get Buy B.C. back would be because to bring it back would be to suggest that something that happened in the decade of the 1990s was a good idea.

C. Evans: …in case I might be right, I'd like to use question period to do a bit of a deal, only through you.

If I was able to guarantee that I would not and my leader would not and some 30-odd people on this side of the House would never say, "I told you so," would the Minister of Agriculture then be able to reach back, take the very good, affordable idea that makes B.C. products saleable in our own market and reinstate Buy B.C.?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the member opposite seems to be fixated on Buy B.C., and I understand why that is. It's because during the 1990s, everyone in B.C. said goodbye to B.C.

N. Simons: Suzana and Jeff Pekrul's daughter Kaitlyn has severe disabilities, including microcephaly, severe developmental disabilities and sleep apnea — all requiring 24-hour care. Both parents work full-time. They've been doing the best they can to care for their daughter.

Last November her condition took a turn for the worse. They've been advocating, and they've been successfully advocating with doctors and health professionals that they need more respite care. But they've been waiting for six months after being promised another reassessment. It's very difficult for families in this circumstance to advocate, and we should not be put in the situation of having to advocate for each one of these families individually when it's this government's policies that fail them all at once.

Will the minister commit to looking into this situation and all the other situations of desperate and vulnerable families to ensure they get the respite they need to care for their children?

Hon. T. Christensen: I will agree with the member that respite services are a critical service to many families across our province. That's why over the last number of years we've seen an increase in the resources available to support respite. We have a host of programs that are supported by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, as well as Community Living B.C., to try and ensure that we are assisting families in meeting the needs of their children — whether it's supported child development, whether it's the At Home program, whether it's respite that is supported at Canuck Place, whether it's respite in-home or out-of-home.

There are a host of services. I am more than pleased, in individual cases that that member or any member of this Legislative Assembly brings to my attention, to look at what we can do to further support, day in and day out….

Whether it's Community Living B.C. staff or staff at the Ministry of Children and Family Development, we are working with families to try and ensure that we are supporting them to raise their children as best they can.

J. Kwan: China has offered financial assistance to the B.C. Liberal government. The funds are to be directed to the Ministry of Education to develop Mandarin and cultural courses in B.C. schools. These courses will become part of the grades 10, 11 and 12 official curriculum.

I want to make sure that the development of B.C.'s curriculum is not for sale. Can the Minister of Education tell this House: how much money will B.C. receive from China? Will the minister confirm that the development of this B.C. curriculum for B.C. students will not be influenced by China, by the Beijing-funded Confucius Institute or by the Chinese Language Council International?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things that I've heard as I've travelled across British Columbia, particularly from parents and their students, is that in British Columbia families want the opportunity for their children to learn new languages. Mandarin is certainly one of those.

This government has a relationship-building opportunity with China. We are going to make sure that we work with BCIT to create a course that meets the expectations of British Columbia curriculum. But we look forward to developing strong and important cultural relationships that will bring benefits to both students and British Columbians.

D. MacKay: I think most of us have watched that program Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? A couple weeks ago I was in the community of Houston at the Twain Sullivan School, and I went through a question period of my own with the grade 5 students. Let me tell you, these kids are getting a great education.

They're joining us in the chamber today. I should mention the fact that when we went through our question period at the Twain Sullivan School, the behaviour of the students in that classroom was quite a bit different than what we see in this chamber here. I just want to compliment those children, if they're upstairs right now.

With us today we have Ann Harness, who is the teacher of these 26 grade 5 students, accompanied by 12 students from the community of Houston. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Simpson: I have a petition here with 2,489 signatures collected by the Dogwood Initiative, demanding the Forests Minister's resignation for his continual betrayal of the public trust through forest privatization schemes.

Hon. B. Penner: I understand that Mr. Bob Chisholm, my immediate predecessor as MLA representing Chilliwack, and his wife Janet are here in the legislative precinct. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

L. Krog: It's a petition calling for the suspension of rules and regulations around locally produced, fresh-laid, free range farm eggs and to allow their sale outside farm gates, signed by nearly 300 citizens of Gabriola Island.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I rise to table the 2007 annual report for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

S. Fraser: I present a petition with hundreds more signatures from British Columbians demanding laws be brought forward for safe antifreeze.

R. Chouhan: Residents of Metro Vancouver are presenting this petition asking for affordable transit — public transportation.

G. Coons: It's a petition from some 428 residents of Prince Rupert to put an immediate halt to any and all drilling for coalbed methane in the Sacred Headwaters of our most pristine rivers the Skeena, the Nass and the Stikine.

Mr. Speaker: Just a reminder to members when they're presenting petitions. You cannot lay a charge of any nature or of any kind when you're presenting a petition.

Hon. M. de Jong: Just an additional reminder to members to attend to the personal effects in their desks during the course of the week. It helps the staff at the completion of the session.

In this chamber I call continued committee stage debate of Bill 25, Health Professions Amendment Act and in Committee A, continued estimates debate — for the information of members, Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Office of the Premier.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 25; S. Hammell in the chair.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

A. Dix: Sorry, just briefly on the amendment — maybe the minister could explain. We'll zip through these quickly, I think.

Hon. G. Abbott: The addition of the term "powers" is to ensure that it is clear that the authority exists to the college. And "the registrar, deputy registrars or other" added before "officers" is, again, to clarify the officials who have those powers under the act.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd like to move the amendment to section 18 standing in my name on orders of the day.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd like to move the amendments to section 19 standing in my name in orders of the day.

A. Dix: Just briefly, this is a package of amendments. The one key amendment here — maybe the minister could speak to it; I don't think we discussed it yesterday — is the shift from 15 days' notice to 30 days' notice.

As I understand it, this is a reflection on…. I think it's the final of the amendments here, which is to 19(j)(7). Well, it's the existing act. Anyway, it's one of the several amendments that shift the notice time from 15 days to 30 days in making a decision. I presume what this is, is just a reflection of the practical realities of minute-taking and of ensuring that, in fact, the information isn't rushed. It's actually accurate.

I think this was a reflection of number of colleges who made this case, and it seems reasonable to me. Maybe the minister might comment just on that element of the amendment. I think there is…. I may have the amendment wrong here, but I think it's the final of the amendments to section 19 which talks about within 30 days of making its decision.

Hon. G. Abbott: The change just reflects the meetings schedule that the colleges have.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name to section 20 in orders of the day.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name to section 22 in the orders of the day.

A. Dix: I wonder if the minister could clarify the purpose of the amendment, just for the record.

Hon. G. Abbott: These amendments are very minor. It is just adding "a" for clarity in the one section, changing "or" from "and" in another and adding "and" at the end of the amendment.

A. Dix: On section 22 as amended, we're talking about interjurisdictional agreements between colleges and the approval of the minister in that regard. I wonder if the minister can tell us what kinds of agreements we're talking about here, just so that we can be clear on that. I think this would be agreements in terms of establishing national standards or regional

Hon. G. Abbott: These relate to interjurisdictional agreements between provinces. So for example, the College of Pharmacists in British Columbia has a mobility agreement with the College of Pharmacists in Ontario. Similarly, the College of Physicians and Surgeons in British Columbia has a mobility agreement with the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Ontario.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name on orders of the day to section 23.

A. Dix: In this case, I just wanted to clarify the intent of this section with the minister. It's adding the term "unethical conduct" in its definition. It's sometimes a challenge with these amendment bills, but I just want to clarify the import of this section.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised that the term "unethical conduct" should have been in there from the start, so it's housekeeping to add it back in.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 35 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 37 standing in my name on orders of the day.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name on the orders of the day to section 38.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised that this is housekeeping for the purposes of greater legal certainty.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 40 standing in my name in orders of the day.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment standing in my name on the orders of the day for section 41.

A. Dix: Just to let the minister know, we're going to focus primarily today on the amendments. I think we've been well briefed on other parts of the bill. These are obviously key amendments that maybe the minister can take us through. We had a little discussion on this earlier, so we're not going to dwell on it too long, but there are some key questions here.

I think we're taking the amendments as a group here, so I'll ask the minister to kind of lay out the government's thinking with respect to these amendments.

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the House allowing us a few moments to go through this long section. I'm advised that in terms of the amendment for 39.1, this is a housekeeping amendment that clarifies which subsections of 39.1 would apply to an order.

I'm advised, with respect to 39.2, that this is in one instance a grammatical correction. It also adds a substantive change in that it adds a section which provides the legal authority for a disciplinary committee, for example, to look at the prior record — I guess would be the best way to put it — of the practitioner. I don't mean a criminal record. So it allows the disciplinary committee or others to look at what had occurred in the past and makes clear the legal authority to do that.

In 39.3, again, the phrase that is substantively important here is 39.3(1)(b) and the phrase is "in relation to a serious matter." Again, this is the phrase that would make a distinction between a serious matter and a minor matter in relation to the gravity of the matter, as we had discussed at some length yesterday. And 39.4 does not change at all, even in a minor way. It is just in there because of the changes that had been made to the other subsections of 39.

A. Dix: Sorry. This is section 41, but we're talking about section 39. So I'll just make myself clear. Is it the case that one of the amendments here — I just want to clarify — allows essentially a witness in a case or someone who witnessed a complaint to also have their identity withheld. Is that what I understand?

I'm talking about the amendments to 39.3(3)(b) that state that a complainant "or another person, other than the registrant, affected by the matter, has requested that notification not contain information that could reasonably be expected to identify the complainant or the other person." Is that, in fact, one of the amendments here?

In other words, intent would be to protect the identity, obviously, of the complainant, if there was a case

of misconduct, say, and there's someone else who is a witness to the event whose relationship with the complainant, I assume, is such that it would allow you to identify the complainant. Am I correct to say that's one of the amendments here, or am I on the right amendment?

If that's the case, that sounds like an appropriate amendment. In other words, the intent here is to ensure that people who are not directly involved in the case might be witness to the case and have their identity protected. Am I on the right amendment?

A. Dix: What that would do would be to ensure that — I don't know — if some event took place involving whoever it involves and if another person is a witness to that…. How will that kick in? How will their identity be protected? Can they request to have their identity protected? Would it be automatically protected? What would the circumstances of that be?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is that the complainant may request that. An innocent third party may request that, and if neither of those things occurs, the committee may still consider whether the interests of the complainant need to be protected, even if that anonymity is not requested.

A. Dix: So that provision is kicked in by a request from the complainant or the witness or the innocent third party in any event — however you would describe it. I just wanted to explore a little bit what we explored yesterday, because we're on the right section now. It's the definition of "serious matter."

We had this discussion yesterday, and we chose a couple of examples. It seems to me, in just reviewing different colleges and their cases and so on, that there's actually quite a range of matters that aren't defined under the act as serious matters. Serious matters mean, as I understand it…. Well, it says here in the legislation that it "means a matter which, if admitted or proven following an investigation under this Part, would ordinarily result in an order being made under section 39(2)(b) to(e)." That's what it says.

That section refers to matters that have resulted in the following disciplines: limits or conditions on their practice, suspension of registration, the imposition of limits on the management of their practice during suspension or a cancellation of registration.

It seems to me, in discussing this matter with people at the college, that they're actually matters that are not defined as serious but quite significant matters, which might result in mandatory training or mandatory counselling that falls short of serious matters. I guess I want to ask the minister about that, because yesterday we were talking about this issue of not delivering enough babies under the act, and I think I gave the example of a cell phone going off during a counselling session.

There's actually quite a range of matters here that aren't serious. In a sense, this definition of serious means that how serious is defined…. It's not really in the legislation; it's defined by the colleges themselves, you know, by their decision. They're creating the framework of what is serious by their penalty.

I wanted to ask the minister about the discussion of that, because it seems to me that here we're talking about, in some cases, instances or problems with a given practitioner that might be quite — I'm going to try and use another word than serious — interesting to a member of the public who might want access to that information and make a decision about a particular practitioner. That might be interesting to them, but it doesn't reach the level of seriousness required here.

I guess I'm asking whether…. Looking through the case files, if there was an incidence, for example, where significant punishment was put in place, in a sense, or significant problems took place with a practitioner, a person under a given college, and say that person was ordered by the college amongst other things to required counselling or something, but no limits were placed on their practice, that might well be a serious matter. It would be the college that would essentially be, by virtue of their punishment, defining it as not serious.

So I just want to ask the minister if he's satisfied with that definition, because in a sense, this is one of the most significant amendments he's putting forward, or whether he thinks the colleges need more guidance than that which is contained in the legislation in order to define "serious."

Hon. G. Abbott: Sometimes I am fascinated by the Byzantine complexity of all this, but I'll do my best. Let's begin with section 26, which defines "serious matter." It means "a matter which, if admitted or proven following an investigation under this Part, would ordinarily result in an order being made under section 39 (2) (b) to (e)."

Then, we go to section 39(2)(b) to (e). It reads: "If a determination is made under subsection (1), the discipline committee may, by order, do one or more of the following…." So only one of these is necessary, although multiples of them may exist:

I think the member was asking about an instance…. Would it be possible in an event of this sort that the practitioner, presumably to try to skirt the possibility of public notification, agrees to go into counselling but doesn't have practice suspended? Well, I'm advised that the historical practice of the college is that one does both. You get suspension of practice as well as a commitment to enter into counselling.

The change that will occur with the passage of this bill is that if the complainant is dissatisfied that the college has not recognized the public interest in terms of public notification of a practitioner — again, in the instance where the licence has been suspended and/or they've gone into counselling for the condition — the complainant will have the opportunity to go to the review board and say: "This does not meet the interests of the public. There must be notification here." The review board will have an opportunity to look at that and, I guess, effectively adjudicate whether the college has made the right determination around that point.

A. Dix: But isn't there just…? What's required, I gather, is both suspension and a limit on practice. Are there not cases where, in the absence of a suspension, a limit on practice is provided?

Let me give you an example. Someone decides, legitimately, that the person can continue to practise. The college decides the person can continue to practise, but there are limitations on that practice put in. For example, someone else has to be in the room. This is one of the cases that were put forward. I'm not referring to a specific case. So the college says, "You can continue to practise massage therapy or chiropractic or whatever you're doing, but someone else has to be in the room when you're practising," for whatever reason that is. But there's no suspension.

First of all, does that happen? I think it has. Secondly, is that sufficiently serious to be viewed as serious under the act? I guess that's what I don't understand. If it says "serious" and a limit on practice…. I want to sort of see what the definition or the limit is on that definition of "serious."

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised that the set of circumstances that the member sets out would trigger public notification, with the exception of the circumstances noted — again, mental health, etc.

A. Dix: And that would be the case even if there was a continuation of the practice. In other words, suspension of practice means some sort of limitation placed on the practice. Is that what I'm to understand by "suspension"?

A. Dix: Just with respect to the issue of avoidance of publication based on sort of personal health issues of the member of the college, of the practitioner, is the minister not concerned…? I mean, not everything has to do with everything else. Is the minister not concerned that that will become a defence that will be used to protect not the complainant but protect the person who is committing, essentially, the offence under this act or committing the deed that requires, in some fashion, punishment?

Is he concerned about the balance? Does he think that, in fact, the appeal process is sufficient to ensure that the balance on this issue of disclosure isn't weighted too much in favour of the practitioner?

I guess the reason I ask is that while it's true that the practitioners in all these cases have serious interests — and this may be used to assist them, in fact, in getting over those conditions — I think it's also true to say that it's very, very difficult in all of these cases for anyone to bring forward a complaint, particularly a complaint of a serious nature.

So in a sense, the complainant also has interests and will find it difficult to pursue that interest. Asking them, in a sense, putting the onus on them to appeal…. I guess the question is: is that the right approach, given that the complainants in many cases, one would imagine, is going through something very difficult themselves?

Hon. G. Abbott: The hypothetical case the member cites…. Again, I guess that ultimately we do have to have a measure of trust that the judgment of the college disciplinary and other committees will be sound. Is it possible that, notwithstanding that sound judgment, on some occasion they might deviate from good sense? Well, I suppose that is theoretically possible. However, again, I think the context of that decision-making is very important.

We would be in a situation where, first of all, the practitioner would have to have one of the demonstrable conditions which are set out in the act — that is, mental health, the physiological issue of a brain tumour or something like that, or a compelling addiction issue that caused a deviation from patterns of acceptable behaviour.

Further, before even that theoretical possibility reared its head, there would be removal from practice of the practitioner. There would have to be a commitment to the appropriate form of treatment or therapy, which would be geared to remedying the physical or mental or other condition that affected the practitioner.

In terms of sort of understanding the context of protectionism that is embraced in the hypothetical model that the member puts forward as well, we have to consider that there are also public members or public representatives on those college authorities. They're not all representing the practice that, presumably, the practitioner is a part of as well. In the last instance, there is also the matter of appeal by the complainant to the review board. Should some error of judgment have been made, hypothetically, they could be called to task for that.

So I would say that I am comfortable with this. I think the safeguards around these things are sufficient that we will get the outcomes that we hope and anticipate that we will get. Again, I suppose that I would have to weigh what I think is a very modest risk around the hypothetical scenario the member has put forward against the risk that would be inherent in not having these amendments.

I do think that in the absence of these amendments, there is a heavier risk that an individual practitioner who is affected by a compelling physiological condition or a compelling mental illness or addictions issue might be doubly shamed and stigmatized, when that was not the outcome which we sought.

A. Dix: I just have a question now, back to the main motion. It's around the provision of counselling for victims. I'm just going to ask this question because the College of Physicians and Surgeons, in their letter to the minister, asked the question. I just wanted to make sure that they got the right answer.

They said: "With respect to the specific wording of subsection 39.4(2) — i.e., eligibility for funding under this provision, 'Funding for therapy and counselling' — we note that the current wording would exclude professional misconduct with former patients and question whether this is the intention." Is it the intention?

Hon. G. Abbott: We have just a little doubt about exactly what question is being asked. We think that the letter is asking about former registrants. It is not the intention of the act that it apply to former registrants. Hopefully, we've answered the question, but we're just a tiny bit in doubt about whether that was the intention.

A. Dix: So 39.4 reads that the "board must establish a program for its college to provide funding…for therapy and counselling for a person who has been psychologically or emotionally harmed as the result of professional misconduct by a registrant while the registrant was providing services to the person."

So it is, I think, the intent, as I understand it. And that's the question here, I guess, by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. They say, and this is under (2): "A person is eligible for funding under subsection (1)" — which is that section I just read — "only if (a) the discipline committee has made a finding that the registrant committed professional misconduct with respect to the person while the registrant was providing services to that person, and (b) the requirements prescribed by the minister are met."

I guess the question would be whether a member of a college who wasn't formally providing services under the act, but may meet a former patient, is still a member of the college or may be defined as a member of the college — but is not providing services technically and still commits the misconduct. I think that's what the college was asking. It's really a question from them.

I'd be happy, by the way, on this…. I'll send over the letter of the College of Physicians and Surgeons — just to make sure. Further, beyond this, this seems like a very good innovation.

One of the complaints just on this section, one of the questions…. Ontario put a maximum, I think, on the amount of funding. The college has had some concerns about this. It seems, though, to be the right approach. Did the minister consider the concerns expressed by some of the colleges seeking a maximum or a limit on this? And presumably — and I would agree with him — he rejected those limits. But did that discussion take place, and why did he reject the limit — which I have to say I agree with?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think I understand the member's question. This is about a professional acting in a professional capacity. It would not involve a practitioner outside of a professional capacity and a relationship, for example, with a significant other of some sort. So I think that's what the question was, and I think that's the answer — the professional acting in a professional capacity.

The second point around limits. That's not an issue that's addressed in this legislation. I don't believe there's been a discussion yet with the colleges around whether there should be limits. If there are limits established, they would have to be established by regulation.

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

A. Dix: Just briefly, I just want to make sure I understand the amendment. I don't think it's particularly significant. Maybe the minister could just let me know.

Hon. G. Abbott: My apologies. We weren't quite able to hear the member's question there.

A. Dix: Just on the amendment, the purpose of it. It looks like housekeeping. I just want to make sure that my understanding was, in fact, correct.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised that the changes in this section are purely housekeeping.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendments to section 48 standing in my name on orders of the day.

A. Dix: We have a number of amendments here that maybe, just quickly, the minister can take me through. I don't have any significant questions about it, except that it seems to make this 15-to-30-day thing consistent through the act. If that's the case, that's the question I have, and it is with respect to these six amendments that we've packaged together here.

Hon. G. Abbott: These amendments are strictly housekeeping, again reflecting the matter we discussed earlier — taking the 15 and making it 30 to better reflect the meeting schedule of the college.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 59.1 standing in my name on orders of the day:

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 60 standing in my name on orders of the day.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the addition of section 61.1 standing in my name on orders of the day.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 67 standing in my name in the orders of the day.

A. Dix: I wonder if the minister, in this case, could just briefly explain the amendment.

Hon. G. Abbott: I am advised this amendment is intended to produce greater legal certainty around supervision and delegation.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to the act standing in my name in orders of the day to section 71.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 72 standing in my name in orders of the day.

A. Dix: Just on the amendment, this is a restriction on use of terms amendment. I think we had this debate earlier, but perhaps the minister can explain this amendment.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. This is the issue that we discussed at some length yesterday, where a health professional from another jurisdiction…. A physician from Albania, for example, comes to British Columbia to teach — to do something unrelated to being a health professional in Albania.

So they come. They're allowed to keep the moniker "Dr.," but they are not allowed to practise.

A. Dix: This section adds the authority for a pharmacist to renew a prescription in accordance with a therapeutic interchange program or a protocol approved by the governing body of a hospital or the board of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia. I just want to make sure we understand, because we're talking in this area of very significant changes in some ways.

I wanted the minister perhaps to take us through this section. It may be the last section, in fact, that we need to talk about today.

Hon. G. Abbott: This is the section of the act which provides the enabling authority for a pharmacist, subject to future determination, to be able to renew prescriptions. This enables that possibility. It doesn't actually produce the ability to renew prescriptions, but it will, subject to the College of Pharmacists developing appropriate bylaws which can be approved in consultation with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It could permit that.

A. Dix: It would appear, in talking to the college, that that process is well along the way. Does the minister, as a last question…? Or it seems to be moving forward anyway. This is obviously required as part of that, but they're making considerable progress. I think that's, in a general sense, a very positive thing. Is it reasonable to expect that that might be in place by the end of this year?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member's characterization of those discussions is appropriate. There has been significant work undertaken by the College of Pharmacists and by the College of Physicians and Surgeons in a consultative fashion.

We're optimistic that these changes will be concluded in a timely way. There is still much work to be done, so it's difficult to predict a precise time frame for it at this point.

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

Bill 25, Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 25, Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, 2008, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading debate on Bill 26, intituled the Health Statutes Amendment Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: When we were last discussing this bill, I had just begun my concluding comments around second reading of Bill 26.

I hope that for the viewing audience, the move from committee stage debate on Bill 25 to second reading debate on Bill 26 isn't overly jarring. I presume everything is good. The looks of puzzlement are….

There were many things said and many assertions made during the second reading comments of opposition members in respect of Bill 26. There are three areas in Bill 26 that need to be noted. One is changes around the Emergency and Health Services Commission, which were not addressed in second reading comments apart from brief reference to them by me in introducing the second reading debates. I'm happy to leave that one alone.

There was also some discussion around section 49. As I mentioned in my introductory comments to Bill 26, section 49 allows government to be more transparent in respect of issues that have been adjudicated by the Medical Services Commission. I'll only be, I guess, a bit more political on this, because I did hear some quite political comments from the other side in respect of section 49 and what we were attempting to do here.

The aim here is greater transparency. Section 49, which really almost entirely limits disclosure in the current legislation of issues which come before the Medical Services Commission, I think is inappropriate in relation to current public expectations around freedom of information.

In fairness to the former NDP government that put section 49 in place in 1995, I would note that we now have the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which actually balances out a lot of these things. When section 49 was initially put in place, that was not there as a kind of measure of what the appropriate balance between freedom of information and protection of privacy should be.

That provision, though — section 49 — has continued to be in effect right up into this moment, despite substantial amendments to the Medicare Protection Act in 1996 and perhaps even at other dates as well.

One of the novel arguments that I heard by the opposition Health critic around section 49 was that section 49 was not an issue in the 1990s because there wasn't private care, extra billing and so on. That is, I think, an utterly novel and quite uncompelling assessment of that situation. I know members opposite get quite uncomfortable when I note this, but the fact of the matter is that much of the major private clinic development occurred under the NDP's leadership in the 1990s.

For example, the Cambie Surgery Centre, one of the largest private facilities in the province, opened in 1996. The False Creek Centre opened in 1999. False Creek is also one of the largest…. In fact, Cambie and False Creek are undoubtedly the largest of the surgical centres in the province of British Columbia, both developed in the 1990s. There were some 24 other private clinics that were developed in the 1990s as well.

So I find it all a bit rich when I hear for…. It felt like days on end. Perhaps it wasn't, but I think it actually was days on end. It was. Some members who also had to listen to that debate for an extended period of time confirm that that debate went on for a very, very long time, was tiresome in the extreme and probably proved very little at the end of the day except that hypocrisy is alive and well on the benches of the opposition. Clearly, those private clinics did open during the 1990s.

The opportunity for injured workers from what was then the Workers Compensation Board…. The ability of those injured workers to access those private clinics was a practice that was developed in the 1990s, and I'm not saying that's wrong. We've continued that practice, and we will continue that practice as well.

I'm not saying it's wrong, but I think it became tiresome in the extreme to hear over and over again from members of the opposition about some kind of conspiratorial effort on the part of this government to move to private care in the province when, in fact, all of that work was done in the 1990s. So I think that's an important point to note, but I won't belabour it apart from the extent to which I have belaboured it at this point.

Hon. G. Abbott: The good spirit of the committee stage debate on Bill 25 remains, and that's a wonderful thing.

One of the things that I heard…. I believe the current Leader of the Opposition made this pronouncement at a national CUPE convention or maybe a provincial CUPE convention in Vancouver not so many weeks ago. This is really at this point turning to the issue of Bill 29 and the many inflammatory and quite extreme arguments that I was hearing around the purpose of this bill in relation to Bill 29.

One of the things I heard from the opposition leader was that, should the NDP be elected in May of 2009…. I know that's a frightening prospect for many, but there will be an election, and it will be interesting, and it will have an outcome. So one of the things the Leader of the Opposition pledges to do is to completely move back in time to an era where we had a very hidebound, inflexible bureaucratic model of delivering care, hospital services included, in this province.

So just to give you a couple of examples of what back to the future would mean, were we to see that situation returned in the province. We would, for example, see this…. This is what happened in the 1990s with the inflexible model we had at that time.

The B.C. Women's Hospital needed to reorganize some of its maternity staff and beds into three wards rather than four to reduce overtime and achieve greater efficiency. The change would not have reduced any nursing staff or patient beds. However, the collective agreement prevented the hospital from simply moving nurses from one ward down the hall to another.

Instead, the hospital was forced to go through the lengthy and disruptive process of issuing notices of layoff and requiring the nurses to apply and compete for the relocated positions. A simple move that should have taken a few days instead took four months. That was simply a reorganization within B.C. Women's Hospital, and the challenges that were imposed by that remarkably inflexible bureaucratic model that existed.

A second example. I can give many more examples of what the inflexibility produced, but given my constant aim to be brief in these matters, I will just…. [Laughter.]

The members opposite laugh. I can't imagine why my attempt at brevity would produce that. I'm well known to be brief among my members on this side, I know.

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, maybe not, I guess. Perhaps I shouldn't pursue that any further.

But a second example: St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver experienced a temporary nursing shortage in November. Because collective agreements prohibit the transfer of nurses between hospitals, the emergency department was forced to close temporarily, resulting in patients being shunted to other facilities.

Rather than staff being moved to meet the needs of patients, patients were forced to move to where other staff were available. Again, just a second example of how a kind of hidebound, inflexible model simply does not work for this province.

I know, as well, that there were many inflammatory impressions provided by members opposite around the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. But I want to quote from a couple of the paragraphs in the judgment,

just to give you some sense of how the Supreme Court of Canada actually viewed this matter in relation to the view that was advanced by the opposition.

So paragraph 134, and this is from the majority judgment in the Bill 29 case. This is page 78:

Further, paragraph 144 of the judgment, page 81: "We agree with the respondent that the health care crisis in British Columbia is an important contextual factor in support of the conclusion that these objectives are pressing and substantial."

Then it goes on from there in paragraph 147 to say: "The appellants' contention that cutting the costs and increasing the power of management are also objectives of the legislation has merit."

So those are a few brief notes from the majority decision. Actually, there's one more I should mention here, and this is actually from Justice Deschamps in her dissent to the majority decision of the Supreme Court.

Again, I'll just quote briefly from Justice Deschamps: "A growing and aging population, costly emerging high-end technology and drugs and complexity in disease patterns have caused an explosion in the demand for health services in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. In British Columbia health care costs have been rising three times faster than the rate of economic growth in the province." That's paragraph 203.

Then finally, in paragraph 205 from Justice Deschamps: "Based on this evidence, I consider the crisis of sustainability in the province's health care system, which this act and the impugned provisions were designed to address, to be a contextual factor that is of the utmost importance to the section 1 analysis in the case at bar."

So that, Madam Chair, is just aimed at providing a rather more balanced view of the Supreme Court decision on Bill 29 than was provided to the House in terms of the opposition member comments in second reading debate.

I guess the question, really, that the public of British Columbia is going to have to look at in 2009 is whether they wish to return to the bloated and inflexible model that characterized health care delivery at that time, or do they wish to continue on to build on what both the Conference Board of Canada, the Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada and others have rightly described as the best health care delivery system in Canada?

It is certainly that, but it is also a health care delivery system that can be improved. Not for one moment would I ever claim that it can't be improved. In many ways, it can be improved, and in fact, a lot of the initiatives that were enunciated in the throne speech later found expression in bills before this House and are intended to build on that very good health care delivery system that we have and to improve it in a number of ways.

Some of those pieces…. And we've just debated in the last couple of days, some of them. We'll be, later today, debating another one. It is very important that one of the principles that underlines our moving forward with health care delivery in this province is that we have respect for all health care workers in every part of the health care delivery system.

We know, for example, that in 2006 — and not a single member of the opposition mentioned this, surprisingly — we were able to enter into free collective agreements with over 300,000 public sector workers in the province of British Columbia. That number included every health care delivery worker in a public sector union in British Columbia.

That had never been done before. I don't believe there was ever an occasion when that many public sector health unions were able to enter into free collective agreement with the government of British Columbia. It had not been done before, and I think it's graphic evidence of the respectful relationship that exists between the government of British Columbia and the public sector unions, including health care unions in the province of British Columbia.

One of the things that we have been able to do subsequent to the 2006 agreements is that government representatives have been able to sit down with leaders from the Hospital Employees Union, the B.C. government employees union, the B.C. Nurses Union, the Health Sciences Association and their respective bargaining associations. We have been able to sit down with them and work through issues revolving around the three sections of Bill 29 that the Supreme Court of Canada has ordered repealed. We were able to work through those difficult issues over a period of months.

I do want to thank the leaders of all of those health care unions and bodies for their patience and persistence in moving through the often very difficult issues that were engaged around that. I also want to thank the leadership from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour and others, and from the Health Employers Association of B.C. for the very capable and thoughtful way in which they managed the government's issues through those very difficult negotiations.

I think it is very much a credit to all of those who worked so patiently through those difficult negotiations that we were able to see those teams emerge with an agreement relatively early in 2008. Again, I want to thank them all for the excellent work that they did.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 26 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move second reading debate of Bill 41, intituled the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm knitting a sweater here, as I do this work as well. I wasn't suggesting that the opposition were knitting with one needle. I was just making a small joke there.

I move that Bill 41, the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act, be read a second time now.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the Conversation on Health British Columbians told us that they valued the principles of transparency and accountability in our public health care system. Our government also believes very strongly in those principles, and we took those principles and enshrined them in the Medicare Protection Act, which is currently before the House.

Most British Columbians today already enjoy a safe and a high-quality level of health care. A number of independent reports, such as the Conference Board of Canada and the Cancer Advocacy Coalition, bear testimony to the excellent service delivered every day by health professionals throughout the province to thousands of patients.

Our government has also commissioned independent third-party surveys to measure patient satisfaction with our health care system in long-term care, acute care, emergency rooms and cancer care. While there have always been areas for improvement, the results show that British Columbians are overwhelmingly supportive of the world-class public health care system that we have.

From time to time, however, there are patients who do have a concern about the quality of their care or of that of a loved one in the health care system. As members of this House know, currently each health authority has its own client relations office that patients can approach if they have complaints about their experience at a health care facility. But we heard from patients in the Conversation on Health that improvements in health authority client relations offices and their processes could improve the transparency and accountability of our health care system.

In this year's throne speech we committed to establishing this piece of legislation — the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act — in response to what we heard from British Columbians in the Conversation on Health. The first step in improving accountability and transparency is to establish a patient care quality office in each health authority. These offices will replace existing client relation offices in much more than just name.

Patient care quality offices in each of the health authorities will have a standardized approach to receiving and addressing care complaints. Whether you're in Castlegar or Kelowna in the Interior Health Authority, Prince George in the Northern Health Authority or Saanich in the Vancouver Island Health Authority, the process of submitting a complaint and having it reviewed will be standardized.

The offices will be responsible for providing a publicly accessible and user-friendly way to register a complaint by Internet, mail, telephone or in person. The offices will register complaints and track them through the health authority review process to ensure a timely response. The six patient care quality offices will effectively represent local patient interests within each health authority and better ensure that local needs are met and complaints resolved in a timely manner.

We believe the patient care quality office in each health authority will be able to successfully resolve concerns and complaints in a timely and transparent way, just like what happens today with health authority client relations offices. However, if patients are dissatisfied with how their complaints were handled by the patient care quality office, they now have another choice, another recourse. This act will establish patient care quality review boards for each health authority. Patients will now have the opportunity to have their complaint addressed by a review board.

The patient care quality review boards will be independent of the health authority. The Minister of

Health will appoint the members of the review boards based on their expertise, experience and knowledge of the region in which they serve. Current health authority employees, board members and contractors will not be eligible to be on the review boards in their areas. In the case of individual complaints, the review boards will be able to make recommendations to the health authority and the minister to improve the health care system for the future.

The boards will also report annually to the minister on numbers and types of complaint received, the outcomes of the reviews, the timeliness of service and other related information — again another example of how information can be used to improve the transparency and accountability of our public health care system, all with a view to improved quality.

The legislation also gives the minister the ability to disclose information regarding a care quality complaint or a completed review that may be of a compelling public interest. From time to time there are individual complaints in the public health care system that become of interest to the public. We want to ensure that when those cases do occur, the public can be made aware of the situation, the facts behind what occurred and why and, in the case of where a review has recommended change to improve the health care system for the future, that that information be made available as well.

Privacy of personal health information is important to British Columbians, and it's important to this government as well. That's why we consulted very closely with the Information and Privacy Commissioner in the development of this legislation to ensure that we have a framework that balances the important values of transparency and accountability to the public with the need to ensure that there's not an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy.

We want to improve the system by looking at the concerns raised by patients and, where it's appropriate, to make changes necessary to improve our public health care system. We want British Columbians to know about those changes to improve the system and when they are made.

Patients have a unique, distinctive view of how the system is working that we can learn from. We'll be working with the health authorities on the cost of this accountability process to taxpayers. There will be some relatively minor incremental costs in setting up the boards, but government believes that it will be an invaluable investment.

As I stated at the beginning of my comments, the public told us in the Conversation on Health that transparency and accountability are two key principles of a world-class health care system. We're putting those principles into action with the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act. British Columbians can expect this process to be up and running by the fall. This means greater transparency and greater accountability than ever before for patients in our province.

With that, I'm pleased to move second reading and look forward to the comments of others.

A. Dix: Thank you to the minister for his comments. As the designated speaker for the opposition, I want to give the minister plenty of time to work on his knitting today, although I don't think I'll be using up any kind of significant time beyond the 30 minutes that we all get.

Now, hon. Speaker, you know, because you observe these debates very closely, that we on the opposition side are strong defenders of an accountable public health care system, that we are, unlike the government, not stuck in some ideological view of the future. So we don't reject ideas just because they don't come from us. In fact, we will be supporting Bill 41, the creation of patient care quality review boards, in that spirit.

What we have seen, and that's why we're supporting this…. We're hoping to, in fact, encourage the government down a newer path of accountability. We have seen over the last number of years — sadly, the last seven years — an approach to accountability in our public health care system that I think has been less than desirable.

You will recall, hon. Speaker, that we were just discussing Bill 26, of course, a bill which profoundly changed the public health care system. The minister was reading very selectively from the Supreme Court decision. Bill 26 is the bill now. It was dealing with Bill 29, the bill then. The minister was just, in discussing the previous bill, selectively reading from a court decision which said that the government had infringed on the freedom-of-association rights of many health care workers.

Now, the reality of that government approach was that that was a bill that was introduced on a Friday, debated until the wee hours of the morning on a Sunday and passed at four in the morning. So when we deal with this broad question of accountability and the improvements of accountability in our public health care system….

A. Dix: The minister's already exercised. He's already exercised. It's good news, because he knows that what this bill is about is accountability and about the government's approach to that. I would say to the minister, simply responding to his assertions around the commitment of the government to transparency, that we haven't seen that.

This bill, of course, directly relates to health authorities, and I'll get to this important question in a moment — the question of the government's approach vis-à-vis the public, vis-à-vis patients, vis-à-vis those who pay for the system and who are involved in the system over the last number of years and how they relate to Bill 41.

Bill 41, as you know, hon. Speaker, creates these patient care quality review boards. Essentially, what we do is we take the present complaint process and we have an appeal mechanism. There's some formalization across health authorities of the present complaint process, and then we create review boards so that if you have a problem with the complaint process, you can make an appeal.

That seems to us to be a reasonable approach. Of course, we would be very, very hopeful that the government would take an unusually broad approach — broad meaning including people other than people who vote for the government; 46 percent last time but an ever-declining group of people in British Columbia — to who might sit on those review boards.

But nonetheless, we think it's a good idea that health authorities, which are often perceived, rightly, in communities as not being as responsive to community or, indeed, individual interests as they ought to be…. That these independent boards are in place so that people can, in fact, appeal complaints….

All of us MLAs are now in some ways, in a certain fashion, appeal boards, because we hear from constituents all the time. My colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds on a number of occasions has fought very hard for his constituents, as have my colleague from Alberni-Qualicum and my colleague from New Westminster fought very hard for their constituents who are not getting the service they need and not finding the appeals and the processes in the health authority satisfactory in that regard.

There are two sets of problems here. One is — and we know this, because we run into this problem; I run into this problem probably every day — that people are reluctant to bring forward concerns. Reasonably or not, they are concerned that the fact of bringing forward a concern will in itself push them back in the system.

So if you complain about wait times — and there are lots of people complaining about wait times, especially under this government — if you complain about level of service, if you complain about cleaning in your hospital room, if you complain about the level of security, if you complain about the fact that on a given day — and in Vernon that might be any one of 50 days this year — there was a code purple and you couldn't get access to the care you needed in the emergency room and the quality of care was affected, the very fact of complaining may affect your position in the system.

A lot of people, and we know this…. I deal with people every day. People genuinely feel vulnerable, because when you engage with the health care system, you're not engaging with a system on your best terms. You're engaging with a system often when you yourself are not well and not therefore at your best, or someone who's dear to you in some way or who you're responsible for in some way is dealing with the health care system.

So you are not at your best. You don't have a lot of choices. You are, in fact, extremely vulnerable, potentially, to the whims of the bureaucracy.

So for this process that's being created by Bill 41 to succeed requires, it seems to me, a change in culture on the part of the government and on the part of many of the health authorities. Let me explain what I mean.

The minister, because he's very interested in these issues, will be interested, of course, in a court decision in 2003, which was essentially a case between the Hospital Employees Union and the health authorities. It's another case where the Hospital Employees Union, it must be said, did quite well in court.

What was the case about? It speaks to the issue of the culture in which Bill 41 can succeed. What was the case about? In fact, in the case, Mr. Justice Macaulay determined that the meetings of the health authorities that were closed to the public were in violation of the Health Authorities Act, which states that board meetings must be open to the public unless there are legitimate reasons to close them. So what were they suing about?

Believe it or not, in the 21st century a union, on behalf of the members of the public, had to sue to get access to a health authority board meeting that was supposed to be open to the public.

What did Justice Macaulay say in his written decision? He described the health authority's argument…. Remember, the health authorities are not an entity out there in the ether with their own interests. We pay for them. They report to us. They're not out there. They're not beings in and of themselves. They are our health authorities. The member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca knows this, and in his area it's the Vancouver Island Health Authority.

Those health authorities were essentially in court defending their right to not have any public meetings. No accountability. This goes to the culture, I think, under which Bill 41 can succeed — the culture in which people feel that if they have a legitimate complaint, they can go and make a complaint and not have it held against them in any way by the health care system, that they can, in fact, bring about change by raising complaints and that they're encouraged to bring about complaints.

What did Justice Macaulay say in that case, which is so relevant, I think, to Bill 41? What did he say? He said that the health authority's arguments in support of excluding the public…. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds is surprised and shocked that this could have happened, except he knows better, of course. He's probably aware of this case.

What did Justice Macaulay say? He described the health authority's position as "a cynical favouring of the interests of the bureaucracy over that of the public." He further stated that it represented — and I know the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is shocked by this — "a stunning disregard of the legislative intent of the Health Authorities Act."

Now, why is this important? I think we need to provide further context for hon. members, particularly context to the Vancouver Island Health Authority. As you know, in the case of the Vancouver Island Health Authority, there's a major debate right now that involves huge numbers of members of the public who may have issues around the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act. That debate is about the location of the hospital. The specifics of the debate aren't really important to the bill, aren't germane to the bill, and no doubt we'll be discussing them in estimates shortly.

The health authority is making a decision about what goes on. The president of the health authority and his team were responding — and the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca will be surprised by this — to

the fact that a petition of 20,000 people living in the area was brought forward in favour, essentially, of two hospitals and against the decision that the health authority was driving to.

What did the president of the health authority say about this? He said that it doesn't matter if it's a hundred thousand. "It wouldn't matter to me if it was a hundred thousand." We're going to do what he does.

A. Dix: He doesn't work for himself. The health authority isn't an entity unto itself, notwithstanding their efforts to avoid public scrutiny in the past. He works for those very people whose views he's ignoring. That's why I wanted to speak to this issue of culture, because it seems to me we further, of course, can talk about this issue of contracting-out and the access of people to the complaint process. You see this in terms of accountability, and it's why I think we need to take even more significant steps than this to increase accountability in our health care system.

We see this issue of accountability in P3 projects, in contracts the public cannot see, whose benefits they can't discuss, whose benefits won't be understood for decades. These are our new health care institutions at a time when the government says that it's interested in accountability.

Setting aside the issue of whether we're in favour or against them — we all have different views on that question — these public-private partnerships, which are essentially becoming a key aspect of the government's agenda on health care…. The public, which wants to have something to say about them, is often excluded from that debate because they are denied access to the information.

Equally, on the contracting-out of important health services. The very cleaning services and other services that were the subject of Bill 29 and Bill 26, which we were discussing earlier…. Those contracts were excluded from the public. So the public's right….

I can tell you what the public says to me, though. This is about as unequivocal as they could say it, and this may well be the subject of many complaints under Bill 41 — this idea of health care facilities that aren't clean, this idea of the public making complaints to their health authorities about long-term contracts that the health authorities themselves have signed with contractors who aren't accountable to the public in the same way as a health authority would be. They say that these issues are fundamental.

This issue of accountability. In all of these ways the government has moved away from accountability and has in fact suggested to members of the public that they don't really have a right to know what's going on in their health care system.

Why is this important? Because for a complaint process to work, the public has to have confidence that complaints will be taken seriously. So we're going to approve the framework of this here, but let it not be said that we don't have concerns.

We have concerns, in fact, that the very fact that the public feels discouraged and denied by their health authorities will lead to fewer complaints, because the public will say: "This process won't go anywhere. Nothing will change. Maybe I'll have a right to appeal and get a different report, but nothing will change."

The health authorities have shown over a period of years, encouraged by the government, that they're not supportive of the level of accountability we need. We have no accountability on capital. We have no accountability on the contracts. The health authority service plans….

Now, the member for Alberni-Qualicum knows as well as I do that we are sitting in May 2008. The member for Alberni-Qualicum is, of course, representing an area covered by the Vancouver Island Health Authority.

He's a very diligent and hard-working MLA who knows a lot about the Vancouver Island Health Authority and has, in fact, been engaged with the Vancouver Island Health Authority in forcing them to take steps to improve services for people in Port Alberni and other communities. He's sometimes dealt with the refusal of the health authority to listen carefully to the concerns of the community and its attempt to impose its views on the community.

Remember, the purpose of the health authority model is to use the accountability that comes with being closer to the people in order to improve the accountability of the health care system. The idea wasn't to create six large corporations which would impose their views on the public. The idea was to use the very accountability that comes with being closer to the community and representing health regions, I would suggest, to make things better. That's the purpose of it.

The member will be, I think, as surprised as I am to know that we're sitting here in May 2008…. The member for New Westminster and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds say that it is the same situation in the Fraser Health Authority. They would be surprised to know that the service plans that are supposed to tell the public what's going on in their health authority this year — not last year, not next year…. Those service plans are not available to the public. The Minister of Health has them. He's got them.

Last year, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds will know, we liberated one of these service plans in May and released it to the public. We freed the service plan. But last year all the other service plans, including the one on Vancouver Island…. When did that service plan emerge? When did it emerge from its prison in the Minister of Health's office? It emerged on October 11, 2008.

The accountability…. Six months into the fiscal year the people on Vancouver Island got to learn what their health authority had in mind for them — not in the future but right then, the previous six months and the next six months. When did they have an opportunity to comment on that? Well, the answer is that they had no opportunity whatsoever to comment on it.

If you look down this list of where we've gone on this issue of accountability, this issue of trust in the

health care system, we see again and again a government moving away from accountability, moving away from a health authority model that uses and respects the community, moving toward contracts for important health care services that are hidden from the public. You'll see that the public may well be justified in its cynicism about the government's commitment to accountability.

This is relevant, of course, to Bill 41. This is extremely relevant to Bill 41, as you know, hon. Speaker, because Bill 41 is about trust. It's about accountability. It's about believing that if you put a system in place, the public will come and participate in that system. They will only participate in that system if we get a change in the way the health authorities do business.

Clearly, under this government, that way of doing business has divorced the health authorities from the public that they serve, has taken people out of the decision-making process, has taken people working for the health authorities out of that decision-making process, has isolated the health authorities in large, bureaucratic private enterprises running in a public system — not only not accountable to the shareholders, because it's in the public system, but not accountable to anybody else, except perhaps the political interests of the government. That's not good enough.

What we need, in addition to patient care quality review boards, is a change in the culture of accountability in our health authorities and in our health care system. We have to have a government that believes in public health care. If we have a government that believes in public health care — and unfortunately, we don't have that today — that would be a first step.

A second step would be health authority models where the public is involved in the decision-making process. That would be a second step.

A government committed to improving the health of British Columbians in a fundamental way — in reducing wait times — would be a third step. That is what people are asking for. People are asking, in our health care system….

These are major systemic questions. Often the hundreds — nay, thousands — of complaints that I hear every year from people involved in the health care system are not generally about their doctor, their nurse, their health care worker, their technologist. Their complaints tend to be about systemic issues.

For example, an excellent constituent of mine, Mr. Guglani, said to me recently: "I have to wait five months to get an MRI to get on the wait-list for surgery, and I can't afford to go and get a private MRI. So I have to wait five months longer than the next guy, who can — right?" He's got a serious complaint. That's not a complaint that the patient care quality review boards can deal with. That's a complaint that the government of British Columbia can and should deal with.

There is a report of the Canadian Medical Association that said that the average wait time for an MRI in British Columbia in the public health care system is 84 days. The government says: "Well, you know, health care is very expensive. Can't afford it. Get used to it. It'll be 40 years before we correct this." Eighty-four days' average wait time, according to the Canadian Medical Association.

I can show everybody the press release under the name of Dr. Brian Day, who said: "Eighty-four days in British Columbia." What was it in Ontario? Well, in Ontario it was 30 days. Ontario faces the same health care pressures that we do, the same demands that we do, but the wait times for MRIs were one-third the time. That's a systemic issue.

It's a systemic issue when your room is not cleaned and when, if a mess of whatever kind is made in a room, you can't get anyone to clean it. You can't complain to the health authority about that. I mean, you can register a complaint, but that's a systemic issue. Cleaning has got worse in our hospitals. It's got worse since Bill 29. It's got worse because the government cut the cleaning hours and cut the supports and the quality of the work done. They made those decisions. Where are those complaints going to be heard?

It's one thing to view this as an individualized process of individual complaints. The challenge is that the government hasn't been listening to the very legitimate systemic complaints of the public. The public, in the Conversation on Health — the very Conversation on Health that the minister referred to at the beginning of his speech — said unequivocally that they wanted a public health care system and that the solutions to problems were in the public system, not through further privatization, which is the direction of the government, and not through the weakening of the Canada Health Act, as suggested by the government. The public was unequivocal.

What did they want to see? The minister talks about going to the past. The very Conference Board report that the minister referred to — the member for Delta North knows this well — that put at B.C. No. 1 in Canada in terms of health care was largely based on statistics from when? From 2000, 2001, 2002. In other words, No. 1 was the NDP's legacy in health care.

Yes, the public wants more accountability and, I think, will be supportive of the small step towards accountability here. They also want a broader accountability. For this system to work, we need a change in the way the government is managing our public health care system.

Enough of the drive to privatization. Enough of the drive of rewarding for-profit supporters of the government. Back to a time when we made the investments necessary to ensure that everybody was in the same health care boat getting high-quality public health care services. That's what the public wants. That is the message they sent the government in the Conversation on Health. That message has been lost on the government, unfortunately.

As you know and as I said earlier, we as an opposition are fundamentally committed to public health care, but unlike the government, we are not stuck in old-fashioned ideological positions. We will accept good ideas from wherever they come. Unlike the

reactionary views on health care of the members opposite, we will accept good ideas.

We'll support Bill 41, but we know what's required to make Bill 41 work the way it should, which is a change in the culture of a health care system — a change which I suggest will only come with a change in government and a renewed commitment to public health care.

The public has spoken, and they are out of step with where this government is going on health care. The public says they want a public system. The public says that no matter what you earn, you should have the same access to that system. The public says that wait times should be shorter. The public says that the answer to those wait-time issues are found in the public system, not in further privatization. The public says, "We want more accountability" — not efforts by health authorities to go to court and deny the public even minimal accountability of taking part in public meetings.

That's what the public said in the Conversation on Health. That's what they say to members on this side of the House every day. That's why in the next election campaign we will take the steps, take the positions, bring the fight to the government and show that to make Bill 41 work, to restore the culture of accountability in our health care system, requires a change of government. I can't wait. I can't wait for that.

So I say that we on the opposition side — and I know the member for Burnaby-Edmonds will have some words to say as well — support this bill because we will support good ideas from wherever they come from. We also believe that a change is going to come. It's going to come in British Columbia because people are passionate about our health care system. They have spoken again and again.

We had another bill in this Legislature, Bill 21. I received thousands of e-mails that said: "Don't do it. Don't weaken the Canada Health Act." What did this government do, this government that's says it's committed to accountability? They ignored all those e-mails. They ignored all the work. They ignored the fact that no one in the Conversation on Health except the government supported weakening the Canada Health Act. They went ahead anyway. Why? Because the Premier wanted to do it. That's not the kind of accountability we want.

We need to come together — patients, health care workers, nurses, doctors. People across British Columbia believe in public health care. They want our system to be more accountable. They support small steps to make us accountable, but they want more. They want a public health care system that will be there for their children and for their grandchildren.

That will be the key election issue in the next election, and we on the opposition side are committed to just such a system.

R. Chouhan: I, too, rise to talk about Bill 41 and accountability — that it says there should be. Well, in order to have patient quality care, we must look at what we have available now in B.C. for its citizens.

Over the years, in the last three and a half years since I got elected — I think it's three and a half years — I have received numerous complaints and concerns, literally hundreds, from my constituents who are concerned about the quality of care that they receive when they go to a hospital.

We'll talk about long-term care facilities as well, but in the hospitals, in the acute care hospitals, when people go, the first thing they encounter is a very, very long waiting time. If we are so concerned about the patient quality care in our hospitals, then we must make sure that the needs of those patients are met with more resources, more staff — not the kind of patient care that we have seen since 2001.

Although we are here to talk about Bill 41, we cannot ignore the impact of Bill 29 on the quality care that we all need to have in British Columbia.

Bill 29 was passed against the wishes of thousands and thousands of health care workers, thousands and thousands of seniors and citizens who repeatedly told this government that by doing that, it would impact very negatively on the quality of the care that people deserve in the hospitals and the long-term care facilities. But to nobody's surprise, the government had already made up its mind, and they were not willing to listen to any suggestions made by the health care workers, the professionals, the citizens. So we saw Bill 29 and its impact in the hospitals.

As a result, what we saw was a drastic reduction in the cleaning hours, a drastic reduction in the quality of food. When a person is in the hospital, the two things that are very important for that individual are a clean hospital and good quality food for them to recover from their illness. But as a result of that, what we have seen over and over again — and we have documented it — are dirty hospitals, dirty hallways, the smell of urine. We have even seen and taken pictures of the elevators with blood stains.

So if we want to talk about patient quality care, if we want to make sure that the citizens of British Columbia get that kind of quality care, then we have to make sure that we have our hospitals clean and that the food provided in the hospital is very good quality food.

Now, I have some examples. A few weeks ago, one of my constituents — I won't name her; I'll just say I received a letter from Jan — brought a very serious concern to me. She sent me this letter. I'm going to read not all of it but just some portion of the letter that will highlight the kind of quality of care that we have in our hospitals.

In her letter this constituent tells me that on January 14 of this year she took her mother to have an operation at Royal Columbian Hospital. When they arrived in the morning the hospital nurse advised them that instead of that operation occurring at the scheduled time, they had moved it back for at least three hours.

Then later on, when they were waiting, they were told that her mom would now be taken into the operating room. Two hours after that operation took place,

the doctor called my constituent and told her that everything went well and that her mother would be in recovery and would be brought back to her room in approximately two hours.

After two hours, when my constituent went back to find out that the mother was not there, they were advised that some complications occurred. Therefore, the mother would stay in the recovery room for several more hours. In fact, they kept her in the recovery room for almost 24 hours.

Next morning, when my constituent went back to the hospital, she was advised that instead of them taking her mother to the room, she was taken to the maternity ward. They were surprised and puzzled about why an over-70-year-old woman, after that operation, would be taken to a maternity ward. They went to the maternity ward, and they found out their mom was not there.

Later on, when they went back downstairs, they found out that she would, in fact, be taken to the maternity ward because there was no other bed available. So she was taken to the maternity ward. They found that their mother was sitting in a chair instead of lying in a bed. When they tried to inquire about that, they were told that there was not enough staff to take care of her, and she had just had a very serious operation.

Then another day passed. Next day, when my constituent went back to her mom's room, she saw…. Also, a doctor was there who was examining her. She noticed that she was bruised right up to her breasts. That's how serious it was.

When my constituent asked the doctor why that kind of bruise was on her body, she was told that it was normal. Then she questioned: "Why is my mom's stomach so large?" It looked like she was seven months' pregnant. The doctor said: "No, it's okay. It is normal." Three days after the operation, her mom was still not able to eat and complained of feeling sick in her stomach. She was again told that it was normal.

This saga continued. Another day passed. Then they were told that she could be taken back home. They brought her home. When they got into her mom's home, they noticed that there was blood flowing. Both of her legs were drenched with blood. When they took her clothes off, they found out that mesh, put on when they were operating on her, was still on her stomach with dried blood, and blood was seeping from one side of that wound.

That's the kind of quality care we are talking about, because there was a shortage of staff and they couldn't do anything about her.

A week after, when my constituent took her mom back to the hospital to see the doctor, the staples were removed, and they could smell a really bad odour coming out of that wound.

When they questioned it, they were told: "It's normal. No problem with it." They said: "Just take her home, put her under the shower, put baby powder on it, dry it with a dryer." And it went on.

Then another six days passed. You know, Madam Speaker, I'm telling this story just to highlight the kind of quality of care that we have in the hospitals. So 15 days after this constituent was operated on, a home care nurse came and checked her at her mom's house. They then found out…. And my constituent was complaining about that. She asked the doctor. She said: "Are you sure there was nothing left in her stomach? My mom is complaining." They said: "No, no, no. Everything is fine."

She eventually demanded to have an ultrasound, and they denied it. They said: "No, we will not do it." The next day when the home care nurse came back to their house and she was rubbing her mom's stomach, the blood was still seeping. She saw something coming out. When my constituent went back to her mom's house, she was told that a foreign object like a sponge was left in her stomach.

So what would they do? They complained. They called the doctor. Nobody listened. Until today, there's no apology. Not even an apology was given to this family.

It further complicated her conditions. This elderly woman was scheduled to go for screening to get some lymph nodes removed — for a biopsy in her abdomen. When she got to the Vancouver General Hospital, she was advised that because of the huge scar of that botched operation, they were not able to take care of her. As a result, she was required to go for five weeks — of every day for five days — of radiation due to that.

This is not the only incident that has happened. I can also talk about my own brother-in-law who had a massive head injury. I mentioned briefly a few weeks ago about that, at the Royal Columbian Hospital. The day after, our family was told that because of the shortage of beds, because of the massive injury that he had, his chances to survive were so small that they were going to pull the plug.

The family insisted, and we fought back. Eventually, an operation was done on his head, and today I will say that my brother-in-law is back home. He has recovered 90 percent. But if we had left it up to the authorities, my brother-in-law would have passed long ago.

So incident after incident, Madam Speaker, we can talk about here. If you want to make sure that under Bill 41, the patient quality care that we are talking about, then we must also do, about the seniors…. In Burnaby-Edmonds — actually, in the whole of Burnaby — we have the issue of the seniors wellness program. With a small amount of money, the volunteer retired doctors are able to take care of some — or many, I would say — of the seniors. As a result, when they do that, they don't have to go to a doctor. They don't have to go to a hospital. Sometimes they are quickly checked. They don't have to wait for months and months. The total cost per patient: $3.17.

We were told that funding from the Fraser Health Authority will not be renewed. After a huge amount of pressure from seniors — 900 people signed a petition — now we are told that funding will be restored, but only for one year.

If you really, really are so committed to patient quality care, as this Bill 41 is trying to say, then let's look at those kinds of programs. Let's make sure that those programs are protected and that the funding is available so that people can enjoy their quality of life and quality of health care.

Now, many families, when they're unfortunate to have a family member in the hospital…. All they're concerned about is to make sure that their family member gets attention and care so that the person can recover quickly. Even though they notice and can see that there are so many complaints — about shortage of staff, the cleanliness in the hospital, the quality of food — they're afraid to make a complaint, because they don't want to create a scene. It has happened over and over again.

So I can support Bill 41, as have my other colleagues, but we want to make sure that in order to…. If we are so sincere about this, we have to have all the tools necessary for the public to be sure that when they have a concern, they can go to this review board and have trust and confidence that their issue will be heard, their complaint will be heard. In the absence of all that, it's not going to work. It will be just another hollow statement, another promise.

To make sure that we have the quality of care for our patients that we want, then we make sure that we have reduced wait times. People don't have to then wait for hours and hours in an emergency ward to get the basic care that they need. We need to do all of that now. We can't wait for 40 years, as the minister was trying to tell us earlier. We have to have all of these measures in place now. Otherwise, you know….

I think what the government is trying to do by creating these shortages, creating these barriers for people to get their public health care as the way it should be…. They want to create in people's minds that maybe private care is not that bad. "Go over there." We must do everything to stop that. We must do everything to have public health care protected in B.C.

So with that, I would say that yes, we will support Bill 41, but at the same time, the government has to ensure that all the steps, all the measures are in place.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, I'm rising to close debate and thank the members for their comments.

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

Bill 41, Patient Care Quality Review Board Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I call for committee stage of Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 18; S. Hammell in the chair.

G. Robertson: Section 6 refers to B.C. allowance units and states that they may only be issued by the director or on direction of the director. Can the minister clarify the full process that will take place in terms of the director issuing these allowance units and how that will proceed, given the partnership in the western climate initiative?

Hon. B. Penner: The B.C. allowance units described in section 6 will be tracked according to the provisions in section 16 of the bill. We expect the other partners in the western climate initiative to develop similar mechanisms for tracking these types of units within their own jurisdictions.

G. Robertson: What exactly will be the process by which B.C. allowance units are issued?

Hon. B. Penner: They'll either be auctioned or allocated or some combination thereof. That will be set out in regulations made pursuant to the legislation. As we talked about last week, there was a draft set of recommendations released by the WCI partners. There was discussion about that at a meeting in Salt Lake City last Wednesday with proposed recommendations of anywhere from a 25 to 75 percent range of these authorizations to be auctioned. Now we're listening to feedback on that.

G. Robertson: Will these allowance units be issued based on load or output? Or will they be based on historical emissions?

Hon. B. Penner: I believe this was canvassed last week, as well, at some length. That's still to be determined.

G. Robertson: The minister refers again to a process and that they're seeking feedback on how the system is designed. What is the process for feedback at this point into how the allowance unit system is designed?

Hon. B. Penner: As we discussed last week, the people who have signed up through the WCI website, which is accessible through our website — there's a direct link — can send their comments by e-mail. They can send us letters and postcards or pick up the telephone.

I believe there were something in the order of 350 different people and organizations registered and represented at that meeting in Salt Lake City. Some chose to travel and be there in person. Others participated via what's referred to as a webinar, using the Internet and other electronic means to participate while reducing their carbon footprint.

So the draft recommendations are out for public comment and discussion, and we're looking for feedback.

G. Robertson: Is there a more public process, any actual public consultation, planned for determining how these allowance units are allocated?

Hon. B. Penner: The stakeholder meetings are open for the public. That meeting in Salt Lake City involved individuals, businesses, non-governmental organizations and environmental groups. Even the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, I understand, got on a plane and flew to Salt Lake City to participate in the meeting for the day. So it's wide open. Anybody who wants to participate is certainly entitled to do so.

In addition, I explained at some length last week about the various meetings and organizations that the climate action secretariat within government has been conducting around British Columbia. We will be continuing to do that.

G. Robertson: As far as I know, there weren't a whole lot of individuals from B.C. With respect to the more than four million citizens of B.C., very few were actually able to travel to Salt Lake City to attend and have input into the western climate initiatives' recommendations.

My question is specific to B.C. and to the allowance system that this government creates. This legislation sets forth that this entire program will be set through regulation. I'm asking a very direct question as to whether people in B.C. will have the opportunity, through appropriate consultation in their communities, to have input on how the allocation of these allowance units happens.

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated earlier today as well as last week, anybody who wanted to or wants to can participate in the WCI discussion simply by logging on via e-mail on the Internet. I know that a number of people did that.

As I explained earlier to the member, a number of people chose to get on a plane, like the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, and fly to Salt Lake City. Others chose to do it by staying at home in British Columbia and logging on through their computer in their homes. Anyone is welcome to do that. There's no cost to registering with the WCI and having yourself added to the stakeholders list and receiving documents and submitting your comments.

Similarly, people are free to sends us e-mails and cards and letters, either directly to the climate action secretariat or to my office, and I know a number of people are doing that. In addition, I think we talked about this a bit last week as well; it might have been in estimates debate. We talked about the process that the Ministry of Environment has whenever we're developing new regulations.

In addition to whatever the western climate initiative does, what we would do is follow our established process that we follow for the establishment of any other industrial regulation here in British Columbia. That is where we would put out an intentions paper, made available through the Internet and sent out to various environmental groups and other interested parties. People are encouraged to send us their comment and feedback before government moves to implement, change or do something different than what was identified in the intentions paper.

G. Robertson: What is the timing of this intentions paper? When will the people of B.C. actually see it, and how much time will they have to respond to that intentions paper?

Hon. B. Penner: I would anticipate that we would not be issuing an intentions paper until after the WCI process in August has concluded with some recommendations that various partners have agreed with, following the current stakeholder feedback process that we're currently engaged in.

So there's some time now for people to respond to the draft recommendations that were discussed at Salt Lake City last week. The time line calls for agreement on the basic framework sometime towards the end of August. I would think it wouldn't be until after that date that the province of British Columbia would issue an intentions paper.

The time period for responding to an intentions paper can vary, but I note that most recently, last week, we issued an intentions paper around draft regulations pertaining to capture of methane, which is a very harmful form of greenhouse gas emission from landfills. For that intentions paper, and I believe it was issued last week, we have asked people to provide us with their comments not later than September 15 of this year.

G. Robertson: To try and extract the core message there, the minister anticipates the WCI process will run through this summer. An intentions paper could be put forward to the public this fall, September or October, and there should be several months, somewhere in the order of three months, for the public to respond to that intentions paper. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Penner: It will be released at some point after the WCI comes to a basic framework agreement in August of this year. I don't know the specific date yet.

We'll want to take a look at what comes out of the WCI in late August and then work on writing an intentions paper after that. Ultimately, that would then be circulated and made available for public comment.

G. Robertson: If that intentions paper goes out to the public at some point in the fall, will the process simply again be web-based, and through letters and e-mails and phone calls, to respond to that intentions paper?

Will there actually be some public consultation directly in communities to explain the significance of what's being done here in terms of allocating allowance units — translating from the jargon that we see here in this cap-and-trade bill and the billions of dollars of B.C.'s economy that it will significantly influence to what this means in communities, what it means for business owners and what it means to the workers and, ultimately, why they should care about it?

Will there be a process like that that translates the jargon and the gobbledegook here into real layperson's terms so that people can understand the implications for our economy and voice their opinion on that?

Hon. B. Penner: I don't know if the member's ever had a chance to review one of the intentions papers put out by the Ministry of Environment, but we do endeavour to put things into lay terms in a way that people can understand.

If the member wants to refer to the intentions paper that was released last week, for example, on capturing and potentially combusting for the use of generating additional energy or electricity for B.C. from landfills, the member will see that that was done in the case of the intentions paper for capturing methane from landfills. I think it's a fairly easy read. It's pretty approachable, and that is something that we strive to do so that people can understand what that process is.

Exactly what the forum will be in terms of seeking feedback on the intentions paper is still to be determined. But at a very minimum it would be available to anyone who wants it through our website.

Again, we also initiate contact with people who have already contacted us and said: "Could you please send us whatever information you're disseminating around a particular topic when it comes to making new regulations?" So we will initiate contact with those people who have already contacted us. I suspect there will be plenty of media coverage as well that will generate public interest, and we look forward to that discussion.

G. Robertson: These allowance units and the process by which they are allocated to emitters here in B.C. will obviously be determined through regulation by this government. That's what this legislation says: leave it up to cabinet to figure out the details.

Can the minister just explain how cabinet's decisions regarding the allocation of these allowance units will jibe with the western climate initiative partners, who are all setting forth on their paths to determine how best to allocate allowance units? Within the WCI and what came out of meetings last week is quite a wide range and a broad set of recommendations, regarding how these allowance units are allocated.

The WCI is leaving this wide open. Obviously, that process will progress. But I'm curious about how the minister sees this government's process internally dovetailing with the WCI process which…. At this point, both of them leave a great deal to be sorted out.

The minister has made no commitments in terms of whether these units will be auctioned or distributed freely, and the WCI process presents a whole range of opinions on that. I'm curious if the minister sees a challenge there in terms of B.C. determining its own best path and whether that will be open to the people of B.C. versus determined by people within the WCI partnership specifically.

Hon. B. Penner: We will be consulting with British Columbians about what the best course forward is in terms of that whole fundamental question about auction versus allocation. It's probably safe to say there's going to be a balance of some kind, as was recommended in the draft recommendations last week by the WCI.

They are looking at a range from 25 to 75 percent for auction. That would probably presuppose that the remaining balance would be allocated in some fashion other than auction. We want to hear from British Columbians — industry, environmental groups and individuals — what they have to say about that, and the government will make a determination after that time.

G. Robertson: Just for the sake of clarity, if there are some cap-and-trade fans watching or there are people watching who don't quite know what this cap-and-trade bill, Bill 18, means and specifically what we're addressing right now. We're talking about, effectively, pollution permits and permits to release greenhouse gas emissions, which are a form of pollution, into our atmosphere and how the government is going to determine how much of that pollution permit can happen through either freely giving out these permits or in actually auctioning off the permits to the emitters, those who produce.

I mean, the real concern here is that the range at WCI was from utilities saying that 5 percent of these pollution permits or, as they're referred to here, B.C. allowance units, are auctioned off, raising money and creating a more rigorous system in terms of setting a market price, up to 100 percent.

We had some of the comments back to the western climate initiative saying that all of it needs to be auctioned off. That's the only way to create a market system that will function appropriately. The recommendation coming out of the western climate initiative generally is 25 to 75. It's a big range, and it represents a significant amount of money in the province of B.C.

So the process by which this government decides how we give out these permission permits…. Seeing as we've all, fortunately, gotten to the point where we're saying that it's time that we regulate this pollution,

greenhouse gas emissions have to be capped and reduced dramatically in order for us to have any chance of mitigating the impact of climate change.

How we create this market for allowance units or greenhouse gas emissions is very important in that if it's auctioned off, it potentially raises billions of dollars in the process. Those dollars flowing into government coffers to be, hopefully, used to actually implement programs that will help with technology and steps by which individuals and companies and emitters can reduce their emissions. And we end up in a virtuous cycle here.

If there's no capital generated through an auction, and these permits are all just given away, as some of the WCI commenters were recommending, there will be very little or no resources returned to government and nothing to work with in terms of creating that virtuous cycle of reducing emissions.

I find it frustrating — and I know the member for Vancouver-Hastings as well in his questioning of this bill in committee stage — that we can't get any kind of a clear or straight answer about where this government is headed. This is a fundamental question about how a cap-and-trade system is set up.

There's a range of opinions on it, and my questions are largely around: will the people of B.C. have significant input on this? Will the decision that is made by cabinet — not in this Legislature, but by cabinet — factor in, in a meaningful way, the voices of the people of B.C.? And can it, in bridging from the people of B.C. to cabinet, then also respond to the western climate initiative partners who have their own wide range of opinions as to whether we give these pollution permits away or we charge for them?

I'd like to get an indication from the minister as to where he sees this going — if it's really a complete free-for-all, and ultimately it's just going to be left up to people in the back room figuring out how these allowance units are allocated to industry, or whether he will make an indication now of a commitment to a minimum of 50 percent auction. A commitment to 100 percent auction would be fantastic to hear. I would be stunned to hear it.

Will the minister give an indication and a clear commitment that B.C. will not be giving away these allowance units to industry and thereby generating no revenue for the people of B.C. to address climate change?

Hon. B. Penner: I've already addressed this, both today and also last week. I've said that we want to hear from British Columbians, including industry and environmental groups, and what they have to say before we land on a firm position about the exact percentage of authorizations to be either auctioned or allocated.

It's funny. The member seems to be taking a position in one question that's exactly diametrically opposed to the position he took a moment before, which was saying that we should consult with British Columbians before we make decisions. Now he's saying that we should make decisions before we consult with British Columbians. My position, however, remains consistent and clear.

The draft recommendations have been issued by WCI. They're out there for public consultation. We want to hear what British Columbians have to say, and we will not be picking an arbitrary number, like the member suggests — at this point, saying that it has got to be 50 percent — before we hear from British Columbians.

It's interesting that the member has landed on a 50 percent number before, I presume, he's heard from any British Columbians on this particular question. It is a complex question.

The other thing I find, though, somewhat ironic is that now he's embracing the principle that there should be extra revenue generated through this allocation or auctioning process so that additional dollars can be spent. That stands in stark contrast to the position his party and his leader took last fall around a carbon tax.

They said they would support a carbon tax if it was revenue-neutral and that they would only support a carbon tax if it was revenue-neutral, because they didn't want more dollars going into government. It should stay out there for individual citizens and industry and businesses. Guess what. We designed a carbon tax that does just that, and the NDP provincially came out against it. They came out against a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

I can tell you that our party is clear. Our government is clear on where we're going. We're reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We're going to do the tough stuff that needs to get done. We're not going to try and score short-term political points by pandering to people who maybe don't yet understand exactly how a revenue-neutral carbon tax works in terms of providing them additional income tax reductions and business tax reductions. We're going to make sure that this is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, and we're going to make sure that the policies we put in place drive down greenhouse gas emissions.

We still haven't heard anything from the opposition in terms of what they would suggest in terms of a meaningful answer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. — none.

G. Robertson: Is the minister saying here today that this will be a revenue-neutral cap-and-trade program?

Hon. B. Penner: As I've already indicated repeatedly last week and this week, we are consulting with British Columbians. We'll be waiting to hear from them what they have to say.

Here's what some other people have had to say about the NDP's position on this. I'm quoting now from an article from last Friday, May 23, in the Globe and Mail. The headline — "Layton Raises Carbon Tax Alarm." In that article….

Hon. B. Penner: I'll quote from the newspaper. The members opposite are obviously sensitive about this,

And yet that's exactly what the NDP is doing here in British Columbia, and major environmental groups in Canada are hoping that the federal NDP don't follow suit.

I also hope that they don't follow suit, because we've put together a broad package of initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We're looking for comment in terms of the cap-and-trade system on what British Columbians have to say, and the opposition would like to preclude that feedback by setting an arbitrary number, 50 percent. We're not going to do that at this time.

G. Robertson: I didn't know we were debating the carbon tax bill, which the government has failed to bring to the floor for more than two hours in this session. Maybe we should be debating it. Maybe the minister will pass that message on and bring it forth, and we can have a worthy debate here on the merits of the carbon tax.

This side of the House is very much in favour of the principle of a carbon tax and the principle of cap-and-trade. We have been way ahead of you guys on this. The government was actually in denial about climate change until a year and a half ago — actually denied it, fought against Kyoto.

Look at the record of this government on accepting the fact that climate change is real and that we need to take steps. Look at the first six years of this government's term. There was precious little acceptance or activity to address the most significant challenge that we face as a species right now.

What is coming forward here in terms of the legislation is a missed opportunity — a cap-and-trade bill, specifically, that we're trying to address detail within, in the committee stage of the bill, to try and understand what this really means. Unfortunately, what this bill seems to mean, and the minister has not done anything to change that perception, is that everything related to cap-and-trade will be worked out behind closed doors by cabinet at some point in the future and that we don't need to worry about the details.

My examples — throwing a few numbers out there just as people have been doing at WCI — are an attempt to get the minister to try and clarify their intentions more clearly in terms of how these pollution permits or B.C. allowance units, as they're called in this bill, are allocated.

The minister keeps defaulting to: "We'll talk to the people of B.C. We're working it out at WCI." Who will determine it? If cabinet has to look to the people of B.C. saying this and the WCI partners saying that, who are they going to listen to? Who takes priority in the decisions that are made around the allocation of these allowance units? Is it the people of B.C. or is it the WCI partnership, or is it just whatever cabinet decides on its own?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm a little surprised to hear the member opposite say now that the NDP supports carbon taxes, because his federal leader said last Friday…. Here's the quote from the newspaper. I'll just read the first paragraph: "Ottawa. NDP leader Jack Layton launched a vehement campaign against carbon taxes yesterday and is quickly accused of alarmist pandering by prominent Canadian environmentalists." That was reported in Canada's Globe and Mail, dated May 23, 2008.

Today the member here says he's disagreeing with his federal leader. I suggest that that party needs to get their act together and figure out just exactly who speaks for their party.

We are working in good faith with our partners in the WCI, the western climate initiative, to devise a cap-and-trade system that works for everyone. We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, British Columbia has the legal commitment to do it by 33 percent by the year 2020.

We also believe that will make available to us various economic opportunities as we pursue new technology and new investments in our economy to help us meet that goal. So our goal is to work in good faith with the western climate initiative to design and engineer a system that will work for our benefit as well as the benefit of our partners.

G. Robertson: In the event that there's a conflict between what the people of B.C., through public consultation, put forward and the prevailing direction from the WCI, the western climate initiative…. If there's a conflict in terms of how these allowance units are allocated, is the government precluded to follow suit with the western climate initiative partners and match the cap-and-trade scheme that is taking place regionally, or will the government have the ability to respond directly to what the people of B.C. put forward as their preference?

Hon. B. Penner: We have signed a memorandum of understanding with our western climate initiative partners, including California, Washington and Oregon. I note that NDP Manitoba has signed on and that the province of Quebec has signed on recently, as well

We will work in good faith to design a system that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and helps us meet our targets while also providing for new economic opportunities in British Columbia. At the end of the day, British Columbia is a sovereign province, and we will do what's in the best interests of British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Does anything in this bill, and I guess it would be within part 4 specifically, preclude this government from distributing these allowances to a third party, which has been envisioned within the WCI, so that there isn't a mishmash of allowance schemes between all these partners?

Hon. B. Penner: The expectation is that under the legislation the government would be either auctioning, allocating or some combination thereof various authorizations for emissions to emitters from British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Does that mean that there is no possibility of the government allocating these allowance units to a third party that the other WCI partners are all allocating their allowance units to so that there's a central WCI allocation body to distribute these allowances? Does this bill prevent that from happening altogether, or is it still an opportunity?

Hon. B. Penner: It would be the province of British Columbia who would determine who would be eligible to receive the allowances.

G. Robertson: Could one of the recipients, or perhaps the recipient, of these allowance units be a third party versus an actual emitter in B.C.? Is it conceivable, through this legislation, that all of these allowance units get allocated to a third party which is a big pool that the WCI partners use to allocate from?

Hon. B. Penner: It appears that the member's questions are straying into some latter sections in the bill and not really germane to section 6, per se. It appears he may be referencing section 15, which talks about an administrative authority for tracking the allocations or authorizations of these emission units.

Perhaps the member wants to direct his question to those latter sections. But in all cases, it would be my expectation that the province of British Columbia would be issuing the allowances to emitters from British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Well, I don't agree with the minister. What I'm directing my questions at specifically is whether the director in section 6, who issues these B.C. allowance units, would be able to issue allowance units to a third party outside of B.C., which would then manage the allocation of those units back to B.C. emitters.

This is, again, a proposal that has come before the WCI to address what they call leakage, where the permits end up…. Industry can move between jurisdictions so as to avoid whatever allowance system is in place in one specific jurisdiction. What is proposed by some is a system where all of these allocations are centralized across the region and across the partnership so that there isn't leakage between jurisdictions.

My question specific to section 6 here is whether the director can issue B.C. allowance units to a third party outside of B.C.

Hon. B. Penner: In addition to section 15, section 16 also governs to some extent how the allowances will be issued. Further, section 39(a) sets out authority in terms of "how, how many, when, with what frequency, and to whom" the B.C. allocation units are to be made available.

G. Robertson: There are more specifics related to my question in section 39 — which, by the looks of it, may be a more appropriate place to come back to this — so I'll just thank the minister for that direction. I think we can come back to that when we get to 39, but it's an important question.

This is assuming that there is the potential for a third-party-managed allocation system within the WCI. I think the preferred course…. The recommendations that were more prevalent through WCI, to prevent this leakage of allowance units, were that there be consistent rules on the reporting, tracking and compliance obligations on allowance units.

Is the minister committed to ensuring that there are consistent rules for reporting tracking and compliance obligations with the other WCI partners here? Is it a commitment of the minister that we will follow suit and comply with consistent rules across the partnership?

G. Robertson: Again, the vague answers are a challenge for those of us that would like to see cap-and-trade actually taking shape here. In this Legislature in particular, where the public has access to the design of this legislation and of the cap-and-trade system that will flow from it, it would be nice to be getting certainty in terms of how this is being designed.

Just finally on this section and on part 4 related to compliance units, there's nothing specifically anticipated here in the bill regarding early reductions. In terms of the allowance units, there's lots of support across the WCI for early reductions in credits for those early reductions.

I'm not aware of any references to this later in the legislation. Can the minister comment on whether, in

terms of how allowance units are allocated, credits for early reductions are anticipated here or if there's a commitment that there will be such?

Hon. B. Penner: The legislation would enable that type of an approach. It is something that's being consulted upon at this very moment. It was in the draft recommendations that were released and then discussed at Salt Lake City last week and by people who tuned in via the Internet through the webinar process run by the WCI. So that's entirely possible. It's easier to say than to do, though. It's a challenge to determine just where to draw the baseline, so we're interested in hearing from people how they would propose to go about that and how to do it.

I would like to just observe, though, that I think I heard the member say that he would like to see a cap-and-trade system up and running, yet that member and the rest of his caucus voted against this bill on second reading. That was a vote in principle around a piece of legislation that would enable a cap-and-trade system, and yet just a couple weeks ago, his entire caucus voted against this bill.

I also can't help but notice that the NDP opposition's purported six-point plan for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change doesn't say anything about a cap-and-trade system, nor about carbon taxes — the two most talked-about tools when you consult environmentalists and economists about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The NDP has been silent about that in their so-called six-point plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps the member would like to clarify whether the opposition does now, in fact, support a cap-and-trade system.

G. Robertson: Can the minister just clarify, in terms of the enabling, where the enabling for credits for early reduction is contained in this bill? There isn't anything specific in part 4 outlining that. I'm curious if it is in here. If the minister could just identify how that's enabled.

Specific to the opposition's support for cap-and-trade: we have been clear. We support a carbon tax and cap-and-trade, but what we've got in front of us here is an aberration in terms of cap-and-trade. There is no other jurisdiction in the western climate initiative that is passing carte blanche enabling legislation in advance of the WCI process, which gives absolute open season to cabinet to sort out whatever they want behind closed doors.

It's all about the process. It's all about the lack of commitment to public process. That's fundamentally where our challenges lie with this specific piece of legislation.

We can say nice things about the principles. We are very committed, and have demonstrated that as a party for decades, to addressing climate change. Unfortunately, our backs are against the wall.

What we're seeing now is legislation that in fact disenfranchises people in B.C., that has aggravated the general level of support to take action on climate change because of its approach, because of its lack of public consultation. At this point in the process, the big emitters, the big polluters, are not toeing the line. They're not covered by any of the legislation that is before us right now and may not be for several years. It all will depend on how these allowance units in section 6 are allocated as to whether the big polluters actually end up having to bear much of the burden and the cost associated with mitigating climate change impacts.

Hon. B. Penner: Again, I just can't help but observe that that member voted against the principle of this legislation, not about the details. He voted against the principle of legislation that would allow British Columbia to establish the first-ever cap-and-trade system in our province's history. The NDP government didn't do it when they were in office for ten years. We're working to do it now, despite their continued opposition and resistance to virtually everything we put forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia.

The member asked the question, I think, again about rewarding people for early action and what mechanism the legislation would have to permit that. My answer is the same as it was for the previous question. Section 39(a) would govern the process for issuing the allowances to various industrial sectors or businesses in British Columbia.

In terms of the consultation process, it's the same as for other industrial regulations that the Ministry of Environment undertakes. We do this every year. There are a couple of times a year that we're embarking on some change to the regulatory regime for industry in British Columbia. I've already articulated what that consultation process involves and how the intentions papers work and how people can feed back into the system before we make a decision.

G. Robertson: Section 8 in what is referred to in this bill as division 2, "BC Emission Reduction Units," addresses the very complex realm of offsets that I think has raised all sorts of questions the world over in terms of how successfully they do reduce emissions.

In this section, again, we have a comparable system to what was in division 1 on the allowance units in having a director responsible for issuing these emission reduction units.

Can the minister just clarify. Will this be a different director from the director envisioned in division 1 dealing with the allowance units? Will this be a distinct entity within government? If so, where will it be located within government?

Hon. B. Penner: The director is described in the act. That would be, I would anticipate, somebody who works for the Ministry of the Environment, a public servant, and is very likely to be the same individual who is also issuing the B.C. allowance units.

G. Robertson: So it could be that it's the same person in charge of the allowance units issuing both allowance units and emission reduction units off of the same desk?

G. Robertson: Again, I'll return to the question of public process in terms of determining what these emission reduction units represent. There probably are as many or more concerns and variations on what offsets represent and how worthwhile or effective they are as there are on the emissions side and on the allowance unit side.

Will there be, again, a public process associated with these emission reduction units and how they are defined, how the system by which they are issued is designed?

Hon. B. Penner: I would expect that the same consultation process would take place that I've already described in terms of consulting with people and developing new industrial regulations.

Just for the member's background, the B.C. emission reduction units are greenhouse gas emission offset credits from approved B.C.-based emission reduction or removal projects. Each BCERU, or B.C. emission reduction unit, represents one tonne of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions and will have the same value for compliance purposes as a B.C allowance unit.

B.C. emission reduction units are issued by the director to the owners of accepted emission reduction projects in B.C. for reductions, avoidances or removals from the project that have been verified against an approved plan and monitoring and quantification protocol.

G. Robertson: Can the minister just reference the passage he's just read and how specifically that relates to the bill or where it's located?

G. Robertson: I'm not seeing that specific passage. I mean, there are variations on those themes in sections 8 and 9, which I have in front of me. But was the minister reading a passage there that's located somewhere else, or was he reading directly from the bill?

Hon. B. Penner: I was just reading from some notes that encapsulate what sections 8 and 9 are intended to do. I can also add further that the B.C. emission reduction units are created voluntarily through projects that reduce or avoid emissions at sources not covered by the cap-and-trade system or that remove greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere.

The commonly cited examples are afforestation projects or carbon capture and storage. So they are something that would have to be incremental or in addition to what was otherwise taking place. Of course, it would have to be verifiable.

G. Robertson: I appreciate the detail and specificity from the minister in regards to these sections. The minister mentioned, I think, specifically that they would have to be B.C.-based emission reduction units, that the offsets would have to be B.C.-based projects. Can the minister just repeat that commitment?

G. Robertson: Does that preclude any offset projects that are located in other WCI jurisdictions or elsewhere in the world? Does that preclude them from being available for these offsets?

Hon. B. Penner: Looking ahead, section 11 has provisions pertaining to what are called recognized compliance units, or RCUs. Those would be units from other jurisdictions within the WCI, the western climate initiative. So that might be what the member is thinking about. The intention behind the B.C. emission reduction units is to foster investment in reductions here in British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Does the legislation as written anticipate the ratio of B.C. emission reduction units to the recognized compliance units that are more applicable to other WCI jurisdictions? Is there a mix that this legislation contemplates? Or is it going to be a free-for-all whether the focus is on these B.C. offsets versus offsets outside of the province?

Hon. B. Penner: The member's question is answered by subsection 2(3) of the act, which contemplates putting a limit on the number of recognized compliance units that can be used for the purposes of attaining a business's requirements here in the province.

G. Robertson: In terms of those limits, are there limits anticipated for the B.C. emission reduction units, or will there potentially be an unlimited supply available?

Hon. B. Penner: As I noted earlier, the intention behind the B.C. emission reduction units is to stimulate investment in high-quality, credible and verifiable emission offset projects within the province of British Columbia. So what would limit that would be the availability of high-quality, verifiable and incremental or additional offsets that can be attained in British Columbia through offset projects.

We hope that there are a significant number of offset projects here in B.C. that would withstand the highest levels of environmental scrutiny. But until people actually start diligently exploring these types of projects, we won't know just how many there are potentially in British Columbia.

G. Robertson: I guess what is unclear here is that the legislation does restrict the quantity of RCUs, recognized compliance units, from other jurisdictions.

Offsets from other places are restricted in terms of how many can be issued here in B.C., but these B.C. allowance units, offsets that are approved from B.C. source — there is no limit. There is effectively no cap as to how many can be issued, how many can be in play. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Penner: Just before I answer, I want to be very clear about what I am answering. The member, I think, slipped up a little bit in his terminology when he asked if there was a limit in the number of B.C. allowance units. There will be a limit in the number of B.C. allowance units. It's all part of the cap design. I think the member knows that.

But I think what he was referring to are the B.C. emission reduction units. The member is right. The legislation does not impose a restriction or a limit on the number of B.C. emission reduction units that could be obtained. But they have to be verifiable, and they have to be incremental or in addition to emission reductions that would otherwise take place.

The reason why we're not putting a limit on the amount of emission reductions businesses can obtain is because we want to achieve significant greenhouse gas emission reductions in British Columbia and encourage investment here in British Columbia in obtaining those objectives. So we don't want to get in the way of people investing in significant, incremental, high-quality, environmentally verifiable greenhouse gas emission reduction projects in British Columbia.

G. Robertson: In terms of those high-quality, verifiable B.C. emission reduction units, what will the process be for determining exactly which offsets within B.C. will qualify? Is there an auditing process that is envisioned here? If so, will that be in the very same office within the Ministry of Environment that this director who is responsible for issuing these offsets…? Will that scrutiny and auditing function be within the same office?

Hon. B. Penner: All of what the member is asking about is actually laid out in section 9, particularly in sub (2) and even more particularly subsection (b): "the process by which a project plan and associated monitoring and quantification protocol that meet the prescribed requirements may be approved by the director, at which point the emission reduction project to which they relate becomes an accepted emission reduction project with the crediting period established by regulation."

So the act does contemplate and provide authority for rules to be developed around that. We did talk at some length last week about auditing opportunities. That can either be done directly by Ministry of Environment personnel in the environmental protection division, or potentially the ministry could contract with qualified experts to do that auditing work on behalf of the government.

G. Robertson: I want to come back to this concern around the auditing function, because the way that this bill is written, it indicates that the same director who issues these offsets, the B.C. emission reduction units, also is responsible for approving, by the standards that are set, those offsets. So it's effectively a one-stop shop for approving these B.C.-generated offsets and then issuing them to industry.

What will be the third-party validation and the auditing function here? What will the requirement be in terms of scrutiny to ensure that the process is rigorous and these offsets are in fact, as the minister has said, solid?

Hon. B. Penner: Section 9(2)(c) talks about the process in addition to the monitoring and quantification protocol that could be required. Then flipping forward in the act, section 39(b)(iii) talks about: "requiring a verification in relation to an accepted emission reduction project to be certified by a recognized evaluator, and (iv) respecting the qualifications required to be a recognized evaluator for verifications."

So we certainly intend to make sure that any offsets are verifiable, withstand the highest environmental scrutiny. I'm sure they would be subject to scrutiny by other members in the WCI if they thought there was something amiss here. We welcome that scrutiny.

G. Robertson: Is there a requirement in this legislation that every offset, every emission reduction unit, does pass this scrutiny, beyond the director who's responsible for issuing those offsets — again, that there is scrutiny that is rigorous, oversight, validation and verification of those offsets? Will every one of those receive that scrutiny, beyond the director who is issuing the offsets?

Hon. B. Penner: Again, if the member were to read section 9, he would find in subsection (2)(c) "…a requirement for the claimed greenhouse gas emission reductions, avoidances or removals to be verified against the project plan and the monitoring and quantification protocol."

This is not dissimilar to what we require in other contexts for programs administered by the Ministry of Environment. For example, through industry-led stewardship programs in recycling, we require verification and auditing to take place. For electronics, for example, we recently expanded into an electronic recycling program for wide-screen TVs and facsimiles and other forms of electronic devices. We require an audit to be done and verification to be demonstrated that these programs are achieving the stated purpose in the approved plan.

So people would have to bring forward a plan that our people in the Ministry of Environment would look at and say: "This sounds good. This makes sense. If you live up to the plan, you can proceed, but you're going have to get it verified." That's what section 9 talks about.

G. Robertson: Well, this specific issue of verification is our concern here. Can the minister clarify? When it does state in section 9 that these will be verified "against the project plan and the monitoring and quantification protocol," is that verification happening outside and by a third party? Is it happening through someone other than the director who issues those offsets?

Hon. B. Penner: As we discussed last week at some length, it could be done by inspectors working for the Ministry of Environment in the environmental protection division or through a qualified third party that's operating under contract.

G. Robertson: It could be. Again, we come back to the lack of specifics and vague references to what could happen, when we need certainty as to whether this, in fact, is a rigorous process. If the same person who is issuing offsets — these B.C. emission reduction units, as they're called here — could be the person who is verifying whether they are, in fact, substantial and meet the requirements, there could be real questions about the integrity of the process.

Given that there are potentially billions of dollars' worth of value in carbon offsets here in B.C. emission reduction units, that one director, given a lack of third-party scrutiny, could be in a difficult position in terms of upholding the integrity that we think is envisioned here. Is there a commitment in this legislation that verification of B.C. offsets is performed by someone other than the director issuing those offsets?

Hon. B. Penner: I note with some regret that the member seems to be questioning the integrity of staff that work for the Ministry of Environment. What we're talking about here is not dissimilar to processes we already follow for other forms of industrial regulation — we've talked about that at some length in the last week — where the environmental stewardship division sets the standards, issues permits, conducts site visits and does follow-up.

If they believe there's significant non-compliance, then they can call in the conservation officer service and the Ministry of Environment for further investigation or evidence-gathering, which could lead to prosecution and potentially conviction in the courts or some other result. This legislation also talks about administrative penalties, and we've canvassed that, I guess, a bit earlier.

So we will be pursuing the highest standards. We're learning from other jurisdictions, including what took place in the European Union, to make sure that offsets are credible and verifiable. They'll be held to the highest standard.

There is a whole environmental protection division in the Ministry of Environment that contains inspectors and officers that, I believe, carry out their jobs on a day-to-day basis to the highest standards. Unlike the member opposite, I am not going to question their capacity to perform the work in a way that meets the highest standards of integrity.

G. Robertson: Well, I beg to differ here. The minister is part of a government that takes advantage of crossing up promotion and enforcement in a number of different realms, whether it's in aquaculture, whether it's in forestry. This is a government that doesn't see potential conflict in burdening our fine and worthy public servants with roles that actually conflict.

I'm concerned, again, when we're talking about potentially billions of dollars' worth of economic activity with regards to offsets — B.C. emission reduction units, as they're referred to here, and the B.C. allowance units on the flip side of that, which are pollution permits.

When we're talking about the potential for one public servant to be responsible for allocating all of these pollution permits to industrial emitters, approving and allocating all of the offsets that are generated in B.C., all out of one desk — in effect, having to hold billions of dollars' worth of transactions affecting every industrial sector in B.C. and, in reality, having significant implications for our ability to mitigate the impact of climate change…. It all ends up on one desk.

The minister is avoiding the question of whether there should be an audited function on every one of these B.C. offsets that comes in, that doesn't place that burden on the one person responsible for issuing.

I don't understand why the minister is casting this as the opposition attacking the public service. It's anything but. In fact, we're looking out for them. In this case, we're saying: "You're setting up a system here that is going to be very challenging for one person to manage."

I look forward to carrying on with this debate, specific to the offsets, because again, this is a very murky design in the bill. These are concerns that we've raised repeatedly with cap-and-trade.

With that, noting the time, I move we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

C. James: I'd like to take us back to the last question that we closed off on this morning when we were walking through the federal government aid package.

The Premier listed a whole number of announcements that he made, and they were related to the $85 million. He talked about the $17.25 million, the $26.25 million. I'd just like to clarify, again, that those are federal dollars. My question to the Premier was: what provincial programs are in place that individual workers can apply to, with provincial dollars — not federal dollars, as those individual programs were?

Hon. G. Campbell: I want the Leader of the Opposition to be clear that the $129 million is fully a federal tax commitment to the forest workers of British Columbia.

We have a Forestry revitalization trust, which was provided to forest workers. I think that was in the year 2003.

What we have been trying to do in forestry in British Columbia is build a platform where workers could find work in the sector or find work for their families in other sectors, as we go through the challenge of the pine beetle as well as the challenge of the rising Canadian dollar. We have been trying to create a competitive environment where forest companies can benefit from the market-based stumpage that would reduce some of their costs to make them more competitive over the long term.

All of those things are about securing forest jobs, not just for today but for tomorrow. I've had the opportunity to meet with a number of forest workers, as has the Minister of Forests, through the round table to discuss further steps that may be taken. But at this point, the millions of dollars that we have put in have really been based on building a future for the industry in rural communities across the province.

C. James: I'd ask the Premier how it's going, but I know his response. We just need to take a look at the number of communities that are going under, the jobs that are being lost and the mills that are being closed to be pretty clear about the direction that it's heading.

But I'd like to ask the Premier again, because it appears…. I understand that it's $129 million. That's federal dollars. That is, in fact, what we've been canvassing since we've started the forestry section. My question to the Premier was…. The Premier talked about the fact that the province has put all kinds of resources into the forest industry. What individual provincial program can individual workers apply to, to assist them?

Hon. G. Campbell: The B.C. forestry revitalization trust was a program that forest workers could apply to. It's $133 million. We are doing more than simply trying to provide for the issues that we're dealing with today. We've been trying to build a long-term forest industry that keeps people at work as they would like to be at work. So there will be jobs in forestry, in reforestation, in a whole series of areas that people can apply to become part of. That will help secure their long-term future in the industry.

C. James: I'll take that as a no — that there isn't a provincial program for individuals to apply to.

The Premier talked earlier about the federal program, the money provided through federal dollars. Could the Premier then explain to us how tuition assistance is going to help displaced workers who need immediate financial aid, who are struggling to pay their mortgages and who are struggling to put food on the table? I have to say that in Mackenzie we heard that they're looking at creating a food bank for students in that area because of the struggles families are having.

My question to the Premier would be: how much provincial money is going in to assist those families?

Hon. G. Campbell: Unfortunately, some workers are in a position of collecting employment insurance. The purpose of the tuition assistance program is to provide workers with the resources they need so that they can take courses that they feel would be to their benefit or would upgrade their skills or whatever. That's the intent of the tuition assistance program.

C. James: I'd like to just remind the Premier of the statistics. Just since January of this year we've had more than 11,000 forest jobs gone. The Premier announced $17.25 million in federal money as tuition assistance, to a maximum of $5,000 per worker. That's fewer than 3,500 workers. My question is to the Premier. How does he explain to the other 9,500 displaced workers what they get?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think I said earlier in this discussion that what we have tried to do with the community development trust is provide workers with an array of choices. So not all forest workers in the forest industry are, in fact, going to be displaced workers in the long term. Some are going to decide that they want to have transition assistance, and there's $80-some-odd million available for those workers to make the transition and bridge to retirement. We think that's a way of providing them with support.

The $17 million is to provide for tuition assistance, which we think is going to be something that's beneficial to workers who are, in fact, taking employment insurance today. We have additional resources available to help stabilize communities, to help find additional work.

But I think it's important to recognize that some forest workers will find other employment. That may well be in the construction industry. It may be in the mining industry. It may be in the energy industry. We are not trying to restrict workers' movement. In fact, we're trying to encourage jobs to be created in the province, all over the province, that will, in fact, provide for additional job opportunities.

The bioenergy strategy is about providing for additional investment opportunities and additional job opportunities for forest workers in the forest industry.

C. James: Yes, we know the government is encouraging people to look at other work, when the Minister of Agriculture's response was to offer flights to Alberta for individual workers. That's the response of this government.

My question is around eligibility for these programs funded — again, I must remind us all — out of federal dollars, not provincial dollars, because the province hasn't kicked in to match the federal dollars. The cutoff date is May 1, 2007. My question to the Premier is: why was that date set?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Associate Deputy Minister of Labour was head of the negotiating team on behalf of the government. He worked with industry sectors, with labour, etc. The May 1, 2007, date was established because the feeling was that it would capture the majority of the workers that were directly impacted. Workers who had gone through a transition earlier were in a position where they could have taken, for example, advantage of the Canadian labour market development agreement.

All of those things were taken into consideration in work with industry and with labour as we created this package to try and deal with the rapidly rising Canadian dollar, the collapse of the American housing market, the challenge with the sub-prime financial situation in the United States. All of those have impacts on what has taken place. We tried to take those into consideration in coming up with the eligibility criteria with industry and with labour.

C. James: As we all know, there were certainly challenges — whether it was dollar, whether it was housing crisis, whether it was the American market — well before May 1, 2007.

My question, then, to the Premier would be: what discussions took place with any of his staff who are part of that group that put together the specifics around this aid package? What discussion took place around workers pre–May 1, 2007, and the impacts they were going to face?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think that the effort was made to look at the industry and the impacts that the industry was facing. Discussions were led, as I mentioned, by the Associate Deputy Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. The consultations took place with unions, employer groups, industry, first nations and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

It was clear that with $129 million, we wanted to maximize the benefits for workers. We wanted to maximize the benefits for workers who were making a transition, and you'll note from the resources available that, frankly, the largest majority of those dollars was going for workers. The tuition assistance is for workers.

On top of that, we felt it was important for us to look at how we could provide for some stabilization for communities. There are communities that are very dependent on forestry in their areas. Mackenzie would be one; Fort St. James would be another. The fact is that in other communities, there is a far more dynamic labour market, with labour shortages that people could take advantage of. So the understanding that was reached by all who were involved in that discussion was that the resource should be focused first on those communities that were the hardest hit.

That's what's happening now. We have ministry representatives in both Mackenzie and Fort St. James to look at strategies for how we can stabilize those communities — which are equally important, I should say, to the families involved.

C. James: I'd like to go back again to ask the Premier. I understand that the committee came together, that they looked at an eligibility date. No surprise — $129 million is all the money that's there. The Premier seemed to think that that was a fine amount for us to get in British Columbia, but that still doesn't touch on the forest workers who were pre–May 1, 2007, many of them who may be running out of their income assistance and struggling to be able to manage now that that's running out, who certainly won't be around to deal with the forest industry that the minister keeps saying: "Years from now, it's going to come back."

I'd like to ask the Premier again: what kind of discussion did his staff, who were around that table, have about assistance that might be available to people pre–May 1, '07?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I should say that my staff, the Premier's office staff, were not directly involved in the discussions. It was done by the Associate Deputy Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services.

I am aware that there is a targeted initiative for older workers — it represents $9.7 million for British Columbia's older workers — that people could have taken advantage of and that may well have been part of the discussion that took place. There is a Canadian labour market development agreement that could easily have been part of the discussion that took place.

I wasn't at the meetings, obviously. Mr. Straszak, from the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services,

was. That consultation took place in April. We have got the program up. What I have said to steelworkers' representatives and others is that we will see how this program works — if it's beneficial and what the drawdown is. If we find that it's been particularly effective, then we may well be able to do more. But we felt it was important to get these programs up and running as quickly as possible.

I can tell you that in meeting with the mayor of Mackenzie a couple of weeks ago Friday, they were very pleased to hear that there would be representatives of Economic Development there. A similar response from the people of Fort St. James who are looking for ways that they can create the bridge for their families and their communities.

We understand that they're on employment insurance. We understand that these are difficult times for forest families. We're trying to be constructive and helpful to those families in those communities as we move through this difficult time to what should be a very positive time for the forest industry in British Columbia.

C. James: There's no question that the individuals and the workers and their families in those communities are extraordinary. They're extraordinary people who have weathered storms before, who have seen the ups and downs. They've just never seen a government that has taken a hands-off approach and says that there's nothing they can do. That's the difference this time around.

It's incredibly frustrating for the individuals in that town who are doing their part, who are doing everything they can to be able to continue to show the extraordinary strength that those communities have shown, but instead, they're not receiving any support.

Given that the eligibility cuts off individuals based on the '07 date, given that the statistics that I talked about earlier leave 9,500 workers without support for tuition, I'd like to ask: doesn't the Premier see the importance of matching those federal dollars with provincial dollars to assist those workers and their families?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think there's no question that forest families and forest communities are going through a very difficult time. One of the initiatives that we launched a number of years ago was the forestry revitalization program, which provided $133 million of support for forest workers. In fact, I think that to date over $100 million has been taken down.

On top of that initiative, we've been trying to provide for a broader-based economic future for communities that have been particularly hard hit by the pine beetle. In doing that, we are working with both the Omineca pine beetle action and Cariboo action coalitions. We've provided additional resources for them to expand their economic base.

We're investing in Geoscience B.C. to expand what we hope will be economic opportunities in mining in the province of British Columbia. We're launching major initiatives with regard to bioenergy and cellulosic energy and major initiatives with regard to replanting our forests in British Columbia — not just the forests that have been impacted by the pine beetle but also forests that had been directly impacted by the firestorms of 2004.

All of those initiatives are meant to create opportunity for those families to find employment, to find support for their families in their communities in the rural parts of British Columbia. I was pleased to see the federal resources to complement the initiatives that the province has already undertaken.

We will continue to work with industry groups, with labour, with community groups and with the UBCM to provide for the long-term future, not just for forest communities but for rural communities in British Columbia that may take advantage of a forest industry that's revitalized and driving into an even stronger future — as well as other resource industries in the province — so that rural communities in this province know that they have our support.

We have been providing for a basic free adult education for people in the industry who felt that that was going to be appropriate. We provide books. We provide supplies. We provide for tuition if applicable. Again, that is being complemented by the federal resources. We welcome those resources.

We think the important thing for the province is to be working in concert with those communities and those families to try and ensure that we secure long-term opportunities for workers as well as for communities and for investors in British Columbia, because that's how you drive the long-term future of forestry in the province.

C. James: Just to clarify, because I think the Premier — as we did earlier in this discussion — is mixing federal dollars with provincial dollars. I asked earlier in the discussion whether there were any provincial programs that individual workers could apply to. The Premier was talking about tuition, etc., and that's being matched by the federal dollars. My understanding is that those are federal dollars. They're not provincial dollars.

My question again to the Premier would be: what provincial programs are available that individual workers can apply to — paid for by provincial dollars, not federal dollars?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sorry if I was confusing in my answer. I'm certainly not meaning to be.

There is a targeted initiative for older workers. It's $9.725 million. It's a cost-shared program with the federal government and the provincial government. That is on top of the $129 million. There is free basic adult education at post-secondary institutions, for people who are interested. That is funded by the provincial government. That is complemented by the tuition resources.

The mountain pine beetle action plan — we have a provincial share of that. We have also secured $200 million from the federal government for that action plan. If you took all of the resources that we're putting into that, it comes to roughly $640 million. If you take the resources the federal government has provided,

which include the pine beetle and the community development trust, it's about $400-and-some-odd million.

Again, what we're trying to do is use the taxpayers' resources, be they provincial or federal, to maximize the benefits for workers, for communities, for the long-term economy and for the long-term environmental sustainability of the industry. We feel that those have been important.

The regional development trusts — the Leader of the Opposition is, I'm sure, aware of them, although her party didn't support them. They were aimed at taking care of the pine beetle, providing for diversification in the face of a shifting forest industry that was going to take place in the Interior markets particularly. The northern development initiative and the southern development initiative trust were aimed at providing resources to rural communities to make sure that they could actually plan out themselves for their future and for the families that are living there.

The coastal sustainability trust was put in place to try and help forest workers and forest communities on the coast. The employment and income assistance program from B.C. Employment is aimed at trying to provide opportunities for people and clients in communities and groups throughout British Columbia.

We're taking a whole series of actions and investments by taxpayers in the province of British Columbia, in the country, to try and provide for a stable bridge between what we all recognize is a very difficult time for these families and what we think will be a very bright future in forestry.

C. James: I understand that $129 million is being managed, or a portion of it is being managed, by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Could the Premier please tell us how much of the $129 million is being managed by them and if there is an admin fee that comes off that?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to find the specific response to the leader's question. I don't have that available immediately. However, the total administration costs for the $129 million is 6 percent.

C. James: So 6 percent of the $129 million. Is PricewaterhouseCoopers managing the entire $129 million?

C. James: Just to get specific around PricewaterhouseCoopers's responsibilities. They're managing that portion of the dollars. Are they also managing the jobs programs?

Hon. G. Campbell: The job opportunities program was budgeted at $26.25 million; $2 million dollars has been allocated to Mackenzie, and $2 million has already been allocated to Fort St. James. Economic Development and other ministries are working with those communities to see how those dollars can best be invested.

That leaves you with $22.25 million. The employment component of that, which can be up to $22.2 million but is not necessarily all of the $22.2 million, will be administered by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Communities, organizations, and forest and range licensees can obtain information about submitting their proposals to PricewaterhouseCoopers. They will examine those proposals, and they will make recommendations with regard to the disbursement of those funds.

It may be up to $22 million. There may be resources that are used for other communities similar to Mackenzie or Fort St. James. Today, less than 60 days after the money arrived, we can't say for certain how those dollars will all be allocated, but it's $26.25 million for the job opportunities program.

C. James: Could the Premier please describe who set the terms of reference for applications for that $26.25 million?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, the terms of reference were set by the Ministry of Forests. PricewaterhouseCoopers has been managing the forestry revitalization trust, and they took on the responsibility for managing these resources as well.

C. James: Will the Premier commit to releasing those terms of reference so that people are aware of what the terms of reference are and how they were set out for communities to apply?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the terms of reference are readily available, but I'm glad to make those terms of reference available. Our goal here is not to not invest the dollars. Our goal is to invest the dollars as effectively as possible.

C. James: I certainly understand the Premier's comments, but we've also seen many examples of this government managing dollars — whether it's playgrounds or booster seats or other examples — where in fact the dollars weren't shared fairly with communities. So I think it's critical that communities have the ability to see the terms of reference, to see how it's decided which communities are going to be eligible for this funding and which communities aren't going to be eligible.

I would suggest that's fairly key. I would ask the Premier how long he thinks before those terms of reference will be released?

Hon. G. Campbell: We'll make those terms of reference…. We'll go to work in getting that out for the Leader of the Opposition and others. I mean, those are public terms of reference. PricewaterhouseCoopers does not make the decisions with regards to this. They manage the system and submit the information to government for the decision to be made, so it's not unclear.

One of the things that we have been trying to be alive to is the fact that some forest communities are more directly dependent on forest incomes than others. Mackenzie, for example, has direct forest employment of 45 percent. That's clearly a community that has had to meet significant challenges. That's why $2 million has been allocated.

Government still reserves the right to look at other communities that are in the same situation as Mackenzie or Fort St. James and allocate specific resources to those communities. That's why earlier I pointed out that PricewaterhouseCoopers's administration is for up to $22.5 million. It's not necessarily all of the $22.5 million. At any rate, the decisions will be made by government, not by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

C. James: Then could the Premier please tell me what kind of terms of reference or filter government is going to use to determine which communities get the funding?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Ministries of Forests, of Economic Development and of Community Services will take the information that's submitted by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Our primary concern has been for forest income dependency in communities, the quality of the surrounding economy, opportunities that are present for other workers.

Obviously, they'll look at what the program looks like, whether it will be effective or not. Is it providing for that bridge for those forest families and for those communities? Are there long-term benefits as well as short-term benefits out of it? Those are some of the things that people will obviously be concerned about as they make their recommendations. The real questions are: how diversified are their economies, and how hard are they hit?

Our goal here, as I mentioned earlier, is to provide support to forest workers in an effective way, to provide support for forest communities in an effective way and to, hopefully, build a bridge that gets us not just through this short-term challenge but that actually helps us get to an even better position in forestry, where it's more competitive, more sustainable and more stable for communities to depend upon in the future.

This is not the only program, but there are other initiatives that government has undertaken to try and make sure not just that we build that bridge but that we build an even broader area of opportunity in the future for the industry. I think that all those things are going to be critical. Certainly, they're critical to the communities today that are looking at ways they can diversify, ways they can take advantage of that situation as it currently exists, as difficult as it is, to maximize the benefits to the community. Our goal is to try and assist those communities in meeting those objectives.

C. James: My question, then, would be based on what the Premier has just shared with us — that the Forests Ministry, the Economic Development Ministry and the Community Services Ministry are all involved in making the decisions. My question would then be: why are the dollars contracted out? If government is making the decision in the end anyway, why isn't the government just making the decision?

Hon. G. Campbell: PricewaterhouseCoopers will do evaluation on behalf of government. They have been involved for the last number of years in the forest revitalization strategy. As I mentioned earlier, about $101 million of the $133 million fund has been taken down by forest communities and workers around the province. I think it's important for us to take advantage of that. We can take that experience. They will bring forward the reports, and government will make the decisions.

C. James: Did the Premier ever have any discussions with those three ministries that he mentioned or with anyone in his own office about the fact that perhaps government could have done this and saved those dollars? Is the Premier concerned that every dollar that goes for administration is dollars that don't get directly to forest families?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm informed that in fact this was deliberately looked at to see what the best delivery model was. The feeling was that because of the experience that PricewaterhouseCoopers had, it would be able to provide faster, more cost-effective service to people. We looked at other options in government that we felt would not be as effective as this model. This will provide for the fastest access to these resources to communities, subject to government's decision.

C. James: I am certain there are many very capable people working within all three of those ministries who could have taken on this responsibility. I'm certain of it, living in a riding that has many civil servants working in it. I'm certain that there are people who are very capable of taking on this kind of responsibility, who could put together a very good program that could have ensured that most of the dollars were actually returned to forest families.

I'd like to ask the Premier whether PricewaterhouseCoopers will be directly providing the job programs. Or will they be contracting, then, those dollars? In other words, will the money be going directly to families, to forest workers displaced, or will their dollars go to individuals contracted to provide programs, then following down to the individual forest workers?

Hon. G. Campbell: We can't be certain, but we anticipate that the majority of the applications are going to come directly from municipalities. They may come from licensees. PricewaterhouseCoopers will not be directly delivering these programs. They will be analyzing the proposals that are brought forward, and the ministries will be bringing forward recommendations for a decision on behalf of government.

C. James: A question, then, to the Premier. Is the Premier or any of the three ministries that are involved

in making the decisions in the end around who gets the funding…? Will they be instructing PricewaterhouseCoopers to ensure that as many dollars as possible go directly to those grant programs rather than be contracted and subcontracted, as we often see when money is released to an individual organization? It's contracted and subcontracted. Therefore, it means that dollars go back into admin and less money to the communities.

Hon. G. Campbell: PwC will not be allocating any of these resources. They will be making recommendations to government, having analyzed those. Our goal is to maximize the benefits to communities. I think that communities' goals are to maximize the benefits to their workers, to provide for long-term benefits to the community as well as short-term benefits to their workers.

That's one of the things I think we'll find with the proposals that are brought in by different communities. We may have licensees that decide they have major initiatives they can undertake that will be direct proposals to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Those proposals will be analyzed by PwC. They will be brought to the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Forests and Range, and the Minister of Community Services. They will then be looked at with the view to maximizing the benefits for workers and communities in forest-dependent towns.

C. James: Just to get into a little more around who the money is available for and who it isn't. The Premier used the term "diversified economy." The money would be going mainly to forest-dependent communities, not diversified economies. So I'd like to ask the Premier for his definition of a forest-dependent community and a diversified community.

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I want to be clear that the purpose and the objectives with this are to try and create jobs in communities for forest workers who would like to stay in those communities, would like to have work in those communities and don't want to be forced out of those communities. We're asking the communities to come forward with recommendations on how they could secure that.

What I mean by forest-dependent communities is that…. There are communities — for example, Mackenzie — where their forest income dependency is roughly 72 percent. That's different than a community whose forest income dependency might be 22 percent. That's not to say that those forest workers aren't impacted. We understand that forest workers are impacted. Whether they are living in the Lower Mainland or the far north, they're impacted. We understand that those changes are difficult for families to deal with.

What we believe is that if we can find jobs for those workers in the communities that will bridge them through this difficult time so they do know they've got a job and some income in those communities that will help to support the communities, support the families and stabilize their long-term future in those communities, we think that's beneficial. That's what we're trying to secure.

There are some communities where there is a human resource shortage. So there are still communities that are looking for people who are willing to work, and some of these forest workers will take advantage of those opportunities. I can't predetermine where those forest workers or those families will go to take advantage of them. That is one of the things that happen in communities that have "more diversified economies."

That may be a community that benefits from energy opportunities. They might be benefiting from mining. They might be benefiting from other resource opportunities. I can't determine all those things.

One of the reasons that we had PwC looking at these things is so that they can have a mirror that looks at the community and looks at the opportunities and says: "How do we invest those dollars most effectively for the families and for the communities?"

C. James: I understand the Premier's description around forest-dependent communities. It's a percentage of the income, a percentage of the economic growth in that town. I understand the pressure that those communities are facing.

But as we all know, there are many diversified economies where the jobs that are available for individuals are creating the kind of poverty numbers that we continue to see in British Columbia — the kind of numbers around child poverty and the kind of challenges around median income that just came out in the Statistics Canada report two weeks ago.

So my question would be: are the diversified economies that the Premier talks about going to be eligible to apply for this funding as well?

Hon. G. Campbell: The intent is not to exclude anyone. The intent is to be sure that we're maximizing the benefits of the resources that are available to workers that are directly impacted and to communities.

Kamloops may not be nearly as impacted as, for example, Mackenzie is, but they're welcome to make an application. PwC will review the application, will look at what the circumstances are there, will look at what the opportunities are for forest workers and will make that report available to the ministers that I mentioned earlier. They will reach their conclusion, and hopefully, they will do what is most cost-effective and most beneficial to forest families across the province.

C. James: Will those communities that don't receive funding for their programs have an ability to be able to get the criteria that was used to say that they don't get funding? Will they have access to that information, and will they have any kind of appeal process to government?

C. James: When might those be available? We've asked for the terms of reference now for those programs. Will the Premier ensure that the application process, the appeal process and the criteria that were used to make a decision, yes or no, for individual communities will be available to the public?

Hon. G. Campbell: My understanding is that it's the intention to have all of the information up with regard to criteria by this Friday. I think that it will be up on the Net this Friday. There will be communications with the Union of B.C. Municipalities so that they can let all of the forest-dependent communities know that it is available for them.

The criteria will be there, and by the end of this week or early next week there will be requests for expressions of interest from any community that's interested in making the application. That expression of interest will…. They will know ahead of time. They will actually self-select whether they feel that they're a forest-dependent community that is actually eligible to make these applications or not. The communities will decide that for themselves, and they will see the criteria against which the applications will be judged.

C. James: To continue on in the programs and the availability for the programs, what kind of considerations or discussions took place in the Premier's office around the softwood lumber agreement and its impact on these programs?

Hon. G. Campbell: Government had made it clear that no program would have a negative impact on the softwood lumber agreement. That is one of the criteria that we use in assessing the actions that we can take. We were clear with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister was clear with us that no program should have an impact on the softwood lumber agreement. We agree with that in view of the benefits that we all receive from the softwood lumber agreement, even though we are in a difficult time in forestry.

C. James: Could the Premier, then, have a discussion or talk about the kinds of things that were eliminated for the ability to be covered under these short-term jobs? An example would be work on Crown land. Was that something that was considered as part of the impact on the softwood? Are there other areas that the Premier or the Forests Minister, or the three ministries that were talked about in looking at the criteria and terms of reference, eliminated because of the softwood agreement?

Hon. G. Campbell: The protection of the softwood lumber agreement simply advised this: that we were not going to be taking over costs that would be normal business costs of a licensee as they carried out their activities. That would clearly be something that would be subject to challenge under softwood.

C. James: Then just a couple of specific examples. Would that include communities, for example, who had community forest licences?

Hon. G. Campbell: We will not be in a position of subsidizing any licensees as a result of this program.

C. James: We talked about the cut-off date for people applying for the tuition assistance being May 1, 2007. Does that cut-off date apply for communities as well?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, no community is ineligible. The criteria will be put on the Web late this week, this Friday, or early next week. Communities will self-select whether they think that they are appropriate for making application. Those applications will be reviewed by PwC. Following the review by PwC, the ministers will consider them.

C. James: There is a criterion there for the tuition, and it does have a deadline. So looking at communities like Midway, if I use Midway as an example, they faced shutdown and a crisis before May 1, 2007. Are the funds available to them to apply for transition funds?

C. James: I'd now like to ask the Premier some questions around his round table, the round table that the Premier created. My first question would be: how did the Premier come up with the idea for the round table?

Hon. G. Campbell: In 2007 it was clear, as the Canadian dollar rapidly rose and as we started to see the impacts of the sub-prime situation in the United States, that we were going to have to take some steps to look at the long term for forestry in British Columbia.

The critical component of that was to say: let's gather together people from industry, from labour, from communities who had an opportunity to think about the ten-year and the 20-year horizon for forestry in British Columbia, as difficult as that was.

We recognize that global markets are shifting dramatically. The competition has significantly changed and is going to continue to change in the years ahead. So the forest industry of the 1980s is clearly not going to return in the same form.

We believe that there are great opportunities in forestry in British Columbia. We still have some of the best forest-growing geography in the world. We have some of the most talented workers in the world, very productive. We believe that we can add additional productivity measures.

But we thought that rather than government saying this is the direction, specifically, that we think we should go in…. We felt it was important to ask other voices, for the Minister of Forests and other representa-

tives of government to go around the province and hear directly from communities, directly from those impacted by the changes, who have, I think, some very good ideas about what the government can do and what British Columbians can do together to secure a long-term future for forestry.

So we felt that a round table, which I announced in January with the Minister of Forests at the Truck Loggers Association, was a critical way of bringing public voices into the discussion around forestry. Everyone is invited to be part of the round table, to submit their ideas to the round table, about what they'd like forestry to look like in British Columbia in 2020 and 2030. We think that's critical to the long-term future of the industry.

C. James: I heard the Premier say that everyone is invited to put in their submissions. Well, they may be invited to put in their submissions, but they're not invited to the meetings. In fact, the meetings are closed door. They're invitation only.

So my question would be to the Premier. Was that part of the terms of reference that he set for the forest round table?

Hon. G. Campbell: The round table, as I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition knows, is headed up by the Minister of Forests. So far to date they have been in Campbell River and Port McNeill; Cranbrook, Kamloops, Prince George and Quesnel; Vernon, Terrace and Smithers; Burns Lake and Vanderhoof; Mackenzie and Fort St. John. They have additional meetings that are planned.

The round table includes members of local first nations who are directly impacted, licensees who are directly impacted, labour organizations who are directly impacted, local councils who are directly impacted. The round-table meetings in communities are intended to be working meetings, where the people who attend are asked to give their specific recommendations on what can happen. They are asked to do that without having to make a major presentation, but they are clearly presentations that are thoughtful about the future of their industry.

We think it's particularly important that local first nations be directly involved. The round table will report out to cabinet and will do that on a regular basis as it goes forward. I think the critical component of the round table is to create an environment where people can offer not just solutions but also their vision for forestry over the next ten to 20 years in the province of British Columbia.

When the minister has had the opportunity to complete the round-table presentations, he'll obviously make a presentation to government with regard to that. We'll have an opportunity to map out a course on the basis of the inputs that we've received.

I would go back and reiterate that anyone is invited to submit their presentations to the round table through the Web. The round table is not exclusive in any way. I know that whether it's local community representatives, independent forest workers, woodlot owners or first nations leaders, they've all been invited to submit their recommendations and suggestions on how we can look to build an even brighter future in forestry in British Columbia.

C. James: You know, I've heard a lot of terms from this Premier. I've said often that I'll give this Premier an A for coming up with empty slogans, whether it's heartlands, whether it's great goals. Now I've heard another one: closed-door meetings are actually called working meetings, according to this Premier. That's how he's described a closed-door meeting where it's invitation only and no one can come in. He says it's a working meeting. I guess that's new terminology from the Premier.

I would like to ask: doesn't the Premier believe that the best way to hear the views of people who may be engaged in the industry is to listen to the people who are actually in the industry? Didn't the Premier ever consider holding open meetings so that everyone could share their good ideas?

Hon. G. Campbell: As far as I know, the people who are invited to the round table are all representatives of the industry. They're all actively involved in the industry. As I've said, anyone who wishes to submit their presentations through the Web are welcome to do so.

C. James: Perhaps the Premier might be aware that some of those forest-dependent communities don't actually have access to the Web to be able to submit submissions. And I would certainly think that all those members of the round table might also believe that they could get some good ideas from people in the community and other people who work in the industry who aren't represented around the table.

I'd like to ask the Premier again: did he have any discussions with the Minister of Forests about the Premier's round table in holding open meetings in communities so that the public could attend?

Hon. G. Campbell: I understand the challenges of a complete consultation process. I think the opening up of all submissions to the Web…. All of those submissions are brought into the round table. Members are provided with those submissions. Frankly, to date, there have been compliments about the process as it's been set up.

The first nations are pleased with the fact that they are not necessarily required to come and present at a major public meeting. There are special meetings that are established with them so that we can deal not just with their issues with regard to forestry but with any other issues they feel are appropriate to deal with.

The effort here is to reach out across the province. That will continue to be the effort that we make. You reach out through industry groups. You reach out through labour groups. You reach out through community groups. We've reached out through the Union

of B.C. Municipalities and other groups to ensure that they know that the round table is underway. This is an important issue for all of us to deal with, and we will continue to work with communities and those involved directly in forestry as we go through the round-table process.

C. James: I think that the Premier needs to spend a little more time listening, because I could line up a number of people who would express concerns about this process, including first nations, and I don't know of very many first nations who would say to me that they didn't want to make a presentation at a large group. They're quite happy to do that. They're quite prepared to stand up and make a presentation, and in fact I know of many first nations communities who would actually like to be engaged and involved in the process.

Let's look for a moment at the terms of reference for the Premier's round table. If we take a look at that process, it says that it will provide input to and recommendations for a forest sector plan that looks forward five to ten years. Five to ten years is all well and good, and that, certainly, seems to be the attitude of government.

I'd like to ask again: why is the round table's terms of reference set for five to ten years? What about now?

Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, again, as we've gone through the process…. When the round table was established, we also set up a regulatory review panel. The regulatory review panel has been looking at regulatory changes that can be made that will cut time, duplication, unnecessary cost, etc., to the industry. The participants of the round tables are invited to lay out specific challenges that may be immediate challenges as well as the long-term vision that they're looking for. To date I think that it's in the order of 25 to 30 regulations that have already been changed, and they're up on the Web.

There are others that are being reviewed. I think there were literally dozens and dozens of recommendations that representatives of the industry, the public and the unions said they wanted to have time to review in detail. They are now in a 30-day process to review those, to see what additional improvements we can make in the short term.

As well as dealing with short-term challenges we are trying to establish a long-term vision which is shared by people in British Columbia who have a commitment and a belief in the long-term future of forestry in this province.

C. James: Just so I'm clear. We know that the round table is to look at five to ten years forward. The Premier now says that this regulatory review committee is looking at the short term. Is that a committee that's going out to talk to the public about the short-term crisis and how we're going to deal with the 11,000-plus jobs that are lost — an internal committee?

Hon. G. Campbell: The regulatory review was internal to government. It was an effort to look across ministries to see what impact different ministries may have on the forest industry, to see if there was duplication, if there were additional costs, unnecessary costs that were proposed.

There were over 500 submissions that came from public officials across government, to say: "Here's how we think you could make a difference in the forest industry." The industry said: "Here's how we think you could make a difference in our industry." Our goal is to try to assure that there are no additional costs that are there because we haven't focused on our regulatory codes. They have come forward.

As I mentioned, I think there are about 25 to 30 regulations that have already been dealt with. There are a number of additional regulations that are now out and being reviewed. Again, we don't want to be acting without consultation with communities, with first nations and with others across the province, but we think that the initiative under the regulatory review will be helpful to the industry in the short term and, hopefully, for the long term as well.

In terms of the round table, when we say that we're hoping that we can have people focus on the long term, that doesn't mean that we're going to wait for the long term to act. It means that the actions we take now will be in alignment with our goals for the long term.

There's no one suggesting that we're not focusing time, effort and energy on the forest industry right now — in fact, hundreds of millions of dollars on the forestry industry right now — to try and move through this difficult time into an even brighter future where we think forest industries will not just provide long-term, stabilized jobs for their workers but also an excellent and competitive environment for investors to come and invest in the forestry plant in the province of British Columbia.

C. James: I want to talk a little more about this regulatory review group internal to government, the Premier says — no public process. Well, we've seen what happens when this government implements policy without talking to the people or to the communities impacted. That's what we have — seven years and a crisis in the forest industry. That's exactly what we have. That's exactly what has happened.

Hasn't this government learned anything from their mistakes of not talking to the public, of coming up with regulatory changes without talking to the public about the impact? The Premier said that they've already looked at some regulations to be changed. Who did they talk to, to make those changes? Were some of the licensees talked to?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sorry if I left the impression that there was no outside input into this. We actually invited people to submit suggestions for where there was duplication and for where there were challenges in the regulatory framework. Those were part of the over 500 suggestions and recommendations that we had in.

We also had recommendations coming from the public service. When we asked people to submit their ideas of what we could do, it was clear that the government might be in a position to accept some, to consider others and to reject still others. But that is a process that is taking place within government, within the ministry.

So far there have been 27 recommendations that have been accepted, and regulatory changes have been made. All proposals will be posted. In fact, I mentioned earlier that prior to acting on the next stage of what may be possible we will be reviewing and consulting with industry and others with regard to the initiatives that are underway. The proposals will be posted on the Web so that people can see them. They will be readily available for people who want to consider them.

When this was announced in January, the industry was invited to participate. Unions were invited to participate. Licensees were invited to participate. They submitted ideas. Our staff was requested to look at where they thought there could be improvements in the way we managed this system and managed the public interests so that there weren't unnecessary costs or unnecessary burdens on the industry.

Obviously, all of us are concerned about doing the best we can to be sure that the industry gets through this difficult time. That's why the regulatory review is in place. There are regular reports out. There was one at 90 days. There'll be another one at 180 days and another one at 270 days.

C. James: Just to continue on with this process, the Premier states that in fact it was a public opportunity for people to be able to give input to the regulatory review. Was that advertised, for the public to be able to send submissions? Obviously, changes in regulations have huge impacts on everything from forest practices to environmental standards to safety issues.

I'd like to ask the Premier: did he ensure, through this regulatory review, that discussions were held with first nations? We've heard lots of concerns by first nations that the government comes to them for consultations after the fact, instead of ahead of time to talk to them about what they're considering.

I'd like to ask the Premier, in this open process: was the process advertised? Were environmental groups and NGOs invited to be able to make submissions? Were first nations included ahead of the process, not after the regulations were decided? Were all the issues of safety taken into account and those discussions held with labour as well?

Hon. G. Campbell: I announced this in January at the Truck Loggers Association annual meeting. I can tell you that people were anxious for us to get on with it. We have been getting on with it. We have informed industry associations.

This was all done on the Web. There was not a major advertising program around this, but certainly people that were at the meeting — which included individuals, environmental groups, Truck Loggers Association, licensees, first nations — were all aware of the fact that they were invited to be part of this.

There was discussion in the press with regard to it, and a press release was put out to communities across the province so that they knew there was an invitation. As I said, I don't think there's been a lack of response here. We have a response of over 500 suggestions and recommendations which we are now going through in terms of how we can manage it.

I think it's important to note that WorkSafe B.C. is part of the internal review group. Clearly, when I said that the government would be in a position to reject recommendations…. We're going to reject recommendations that in any way jeopardize worker safety.

I think the critical thing here, though, is that we have been told by the industry, by workers in the industry, by people in the industry that we had to get on with these tasks. We are getting on with these tasks. We hope there will be benefits from them. It was important that we maintain safety regardless, and that has been clear throughout.

C. James: Just so I'm clear on the Premier's comments. People either had to be at the Truck Loggers Association to know that the Premier was putting this together or had to know to go on the Web and keep checking to see something new. No invitation, no information went out to groups and organizations to ask them for submissions to this regulatory review.

I come back again to first nations. What kinds of consultations were held with first nations ahead of any regulatory change?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned, not only did I make a speech at the truck loggers…. The minister made speeches. A press release went out to media outlets throughout the province.

First nations had actually been involved in a year-long review with regard to their concerns and their opportunities in forestry. They are part of the forests round table. There are two representatives of first nations who I think were nominated by the leadership council. So first nations have been included throughout and will continue to be included in these deliberations and considerations.

The public was informed through press releases, through speeches, through whatever media stories there may have been that they were invited to submit recommendations. Again, I think there were over 500 recommendations, so it's not like people weren't aware of the fact that this was taking place.

The process in place was for there to be, once those recommendations came in, a review. You know, we had the opportunity to accept recommendations, to consider them or to reject them. As we consider them, there are industry groups, first nations and the round table itself that may well be included.

This is a regulatory review panel that's critically important. In the short term it's going to act as expedi-

tiously and directly as possible so whatever benefits there are to be found can accrue to the forest industry as quickly as possible.

C. James: I have to say that we've seen what happens with this government when they implement policies that they haven't gone out and talked to people about the impact on, and that's the crisis we see. I have to express my skepticism that this government is going to ensure that they've really talked to the public about the impact of any changes they're making.

Just to go back to the terms of reference again for the round table, it says that the Minister of Forests and Range will report to cabinet quarterly on the progress of the working round table. Could I ask the Premier: will those reports be made public?

Hon. G. Campbell: The minister makes regular reports and puts them on the Web with regard to the meetings that are taking place. The round table has been directed to submit a report to cabinet by December. That will be a cabinet document, and it will be treated as all other cabinet documents are.

C. James: There was a commitment of quarterly reports. I've taken a look at what's up on the Web. It's bullets. It's a summary of a couple of things that are talked about. It's not a report from the minister at all. It's not a report on what's going on at the round table. It's not a report on the thinking of the round table or the direction or the work that they're looking at or the pieces that they may be gathering in order to do their work.

Again to the Premier. The commitment was quarterly reports. Will those be made public?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the commitment was clearly that the minister would be reporting quarterly to cabinet. He will do that. He will also provide summary reports in a timely manner to the public. Those cabinet reports will be treated like cabinet documents.

C. James: So the answer is no, the public will not receive those reports. They will be cabinet, and they will be subject then to FOI and not released is what the Premier is saying. Again, for a process that is closed door, that's invitation only, that doesn't provide opportunities for the public to be engaged…. It doesn't sound to me like the Premier or government is really interested in receiving information.

Although the terms of reference for the round table talk about five to ten years ahead of time, he also said that the round table could act now if there was something that instantly needed to be addressed or started work on. Certainly, one of the issues that I've heard from every community I've visited around the province in the area of forestry is tenure reform and the critical nature of tenure reform.

My question then would be to the Premier. Has he looked at starting a process now to review tenure?

Hon. G. Campbell: I am informed by the Minister of Forests that tenure reform has often arisen at the round-table discussions that he's had around the province. I also am aware of the fact that there's probably no single more difficult public policy challenge that we face than tenure reform. The legal framework within which tenure reform can take place has dramatically changed from what it may have been even ten years ago in British Columbia.

It is something that I think is extremely complex. It sounds simple to say it — tenure reform — but it's extremely complex. I am sure it is something that will be considered by the round table, but it will probably not be the first thing that they consider. It is something that will require a significant amount of work, and I'm informed by the Minister of Forests that that work is beginning to be done, but I don't want to hold out any suggestion that there is a simple answer with regard to tenure reform.

It's something that has been wrestled with for some time. It's something that I think we see as an opportunity. But it will take a significant amount of work, consultation and, frankly, research to fully understand the impacts that any tenure reform system may have on the province's forest industry, on softwood lumber, on a number of other areas and on first nations opportunities that we have to be aware of as we pursue that kind of major policy initiative.

Having heard from people around the province, the round table may well come back with some recommendations on how we can pursue that — the areas where we will get the maximum benefit for people in British Columbia, maximize the benefits of the forests for workers and for communities across the province.

I don't want to prejudge what their conclusions are. Frankly, I'm not in a position where I have heard the presentations at the round table. That's why we have a round-table report that will come out of this process. As I mentioned earlier, it's scheduled for December of 2008.

C. James: I heard mixed comments from the Premier, so I just want to clarify them. The Premier said that the round table is looking at a number of things; that yes, tenure reform has been a discussion at some of the round tables; that it's been an issue that has come up. We all agree that it's complex — part of the reason that I believe you have to get on with those discussions now and start having those discussions in a very public way.

The Premier did say that some work had begun around tenure reform. I'd like to ask the Premier: where has that work begun, and who is involved in those discussions?

Hon. G. Campbell: Each meeting, the round table outlines on the Web the discussion plan that they've had, the presentations that they've received and the workplan that is flowing from that. It is important, I think, that the Ministry of Forests is examining some of these items.

For example, they are now reviewing different tenure options or tenure reform options — different tenures in different parts of the world and how they would be applicable in the province of British Columbia within the confines or the constraints of Canadian law and Canadian jurisprudence as well as public policy — and they will be bringing that information forward to the round table for their consideration.

C. James: You know, when I take a look at this government's track record around understanding that our forests are public lands and belong to the communities and the people of British Columbia, they've got a terrible track record. In fact, we've seen it in a whole number of examples, whether private lands released or this government completely ignoring the link between resources and the community. I don't know anyone who would trust this government to take on tenure reform and to make sure the public had an opportunity for discussion.

I express my concern to the Premier about the fact that if the Ministry of Forests is embarking on a review of tenure reform and some examples, as he points out, from this jurisdiction or other jurisdictions…. When is that discussion going to be a public process? When is the public going to be able to be engaged in what is a very important discussion for the resources that belong to the people of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me be clear. The public is invited to be engaged now if they would like to be engaged in recommendations on how we can improve the forest industry. Whether it's tenure reform or reforestation, whether it's looking at how we harvest or how we encourage investment in the province, that's up to the public to decide. They're invited to be making their submissions now. All of the submissions are provided to the round table. The round table has an opportunity to consider them.

Certainly, should the round table come forward and suggest to cabinet that there is an opportunity for tenure reform that works within the legal constraints and public policy constraints of the province of British Columbia, it would be subject to significant public discussion or consultation before any final decisions are made.

As I mentioned earlier, there are extensive and in some ways conflicting public demands that are placed on forest tenures and our forests in the province. We recognize it as a public resource. We see it as a public resource that can provide economic, social and environmental strength to the future of the province of British Columbia. We actually encourage the public to be involved in the discussion of that — in all walks of life but particularly those who are directly involved with the forest industry in British Columbia and who have some specific recommendations that they might make.

You know, I don't apologize for a second for the Minister of Forests to go out and see what situations exist in other parts of the country or the world, to see if there are other tenures that actually encourage the kind of activities that we hope to take place in our forests. The whole purpose of the round table is to look at where we're trying to be in five and ten years. That means we have to take actions — today or next year or the year after that — that will help us get to those destinations, and I think that's a critical component of this.

Again, I'm not going to prejudge what the public submits. I won't prejudge what the round table recommends. I certainly won't prejudge what the delegations come forward with, but I am looking forward to the results of the round-table discussions. They've been asked to submit a report to cabinet by December.

C. James: I remain a skeptic when it comes to this Premier's and this government's direction around openness and transparency. It's the round table that the Premier says will be accepting material — the round table that is invitation only, that is closed-door, that doesn't report to the public, with a minister who only puts bullets on the website and doesn't make his reports open to the public. As I said, I remain a skeptic based on this government's track record on how they handle openness and transparency.

I'd just like to touch on one more forestry-related issue, which is related to a former staff person from the Premier's office, a former contractor in the Premier's office. That's Mr. Dobell. Just so I get it correct, one of Mr. Dobell's tasks when he was special adviser in the Premier's office was to prepare the coastal forest action plan. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Campbell: I apologize for the delay. I was just confirming. I knew Mr. Dobell had worked on the coastal forest action plan with the Ministry of Forests. There was an overlap while he was working on softwood. He was requested by the Minister of Forests and the forest industry to come and assist with the coast. We said yes, he could do that. He had a contract that was then renewed with the Ministry of Forests in 2006.

C. James: And for that Mr. Dobell — just so I'm correct — presented a nine-page report as the end result of that work.

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned, Mr. Dobell worked with the Ministry of Forests on the coastal action plan. He submitted a group of recommendations to the Ministry of Forests, which were made public. He, I think, according to all accounts from the Ministry of Forests, did the job that they asked him to do. According to industry, he had done a good job of providing them with the sort of foundation they needed to move forward with the revitalization plan.

He did not submit that report to my office. It wasn't directly under the auspices of my office that he completed that work.

C. James: We know that Mr. Dobell was making $230,000 as a special adviser in the Premier's office. What was Mr. Dobell paid for the work that he was doing on the coastal forest? Were those resources that

Hon. G. Campbell: The Premier's office wasn't paying for the work that Mr. Dobell was doing for the Ministry of Forests. The contract that the Leader of the Opposition refers to was an hourly rate, which was allowed to be charged up to that amount. It was not a set amount. It was based on an hourly rate.

C. James: Those resources, then, came from the Ministry of Forests. Am I correct?

Hon. G. Campbell: The hourly rate for the coast revitalization plan was paid for by the Ministry of Forests.

C. James: So Mr. Dobell was making $230,000 in the Premier's office as a special adviser. He then made an hourly amount from the Ministry of Forests for a nine-page report and then brought in a report that…. If we take a look at the recommendations, in fact most of them haven't been looked at.

I'd like to ask the Premier about the recommendations specifically. Mr. Dobell…. One of the recommendations he included in that report was land use certainty. So my question to the Premier, then, is: how does the continued sale of private forest lands fit with that recommendation in the Dobell report?

Hon. G. Campbell: I want to reiterate my answer so that the Leader of the Opposition hears it. There was a budgeted amount of $230,000 which Mr. Dobell could bill up to that amount using an hourly rate. He did not get a set contract of $230,000. Let's everyone understand that.

As we canvassed in previous estimates, when Mr. Dobell was working for our office, which he has not in the last year, but when he was working for our office…. For example, in the year 2005-06 his total fees were $139,000. In the year 2006-07 his total fee was $102,000 — not $230,000 as the Leader of the Opposition tried to leave the impression. It was $102,000 that was billed at an hourly rate.

When Mr. Dobell was working on the coastal revitalization plan, the bills were paid by Forests.

C. James: Thank you for the clarification from the Premier. Just to come back to the recommendations in the report and the taxpayer dollars that went out in this report from Mr. Dobell, I'd like to come back then again to ask the Premier…. One of the recommendations from Mr. Dobell was land use certainty. How does the continued sale of private forest lands manage to jibe with the recommendation that was in Mr. Dobell's report?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have all of the members of the Forests Ministry here to deal with the details of all of the plans that may have been discussed or may not have been discussed in Forests estimates. I'm sure that the opposition had a chance to canvass those things.

I can tell you that the coastal forest action plan was meant to enhance the shift to second-growth forests, which is something that people across the Island and the coast have been talking about. We wanted to encourage hardwood harvesting.

We are examining options to provide for land use certainty, as was recommended. I think those are critical components. We're examining ways that we can support a competitive pulp and paper sector and are helping to look for new technologies for that sector in the new world they live in.

All of those components of the action plan are aimed at having a long-term forest industry for the coast. We're expanding trade opportunities for coastal forest products. We're looking at different uses for coastal products, product development for coastal forest products. All of those things will remain part of what our initiatives are to try and improve the forest industry not just on the coast but in the province of British Columbia.

I think it's important to note that I'm sure that the Minister of Forests and the ministry with all their officials are willing to deal with the details of what the coast forest action plan is. I don't have the resources here nor all the background that's necessary to do that.

I'm glad to speak to the general direction that we're trying to take in British Columbia, which is to create a forest industry that's healthy, that's vital, that secures long-term jobs for workers, that supports their families, that stabilizes their communities and encourages investment.

All of those things are critical. There is a very important transition that's taking place on the coast and in other parts of our province as we wrestle to create a competitive, sustainable, environmentally sound forest industry that provides the support for not just the families that are involved but the communities that are directly dependent on forestry for their long-term futures.

The Chair: I will just, as a friendly reminder, bring the relevance back to questioning regarding the Premier's estimates.

C. James: I will. Since Mr. Dobell was a special adviser in the Premier's office and prepared the coastal forest report, I certainly would expect that the Premier would have taken some time to read that report and would have taken some time to look at the recommendations. So the questions for the Premier are both related to the Premier's Roundtable on Forestry.

The Premier himself has talked a great deal about the direction that he wants the forest industry to go in British Columbia, and there are some key recommendations in that report that I think are important for the Premier to let the public know his opinion of.

One of those key areas is the sell-off of coastal forest lands, of private forest lands. I'd like to ask the Premier, given the most recent lawsuit by first nations,

and there are other examples as well regarding the transfer of private lands…. Does the Premier believe that that action of his government fits with the recommendations in Mr. Dobell's report or fits with the new relationship, which again, is one of the Premier's top priorities?

Hon. G. Campbell: We've been at this for a few hours. I think the Leader of the Opposition knows what my answer is when she asks me questions that are directly related to a lawsuit. She might want to rephrase the question.

C. James: I'd be happy to rephrase the question and ask the Premier how the sell-off of private forest lands fits with trying to maintain the forest land base and revitalize a forest industry in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think that in terms of establishing a sense of confidence from not just investors and not just private land holders but from the public is for the public to know that there are processes in place and that those processes will be followed. So there is a process to consider private lands. There is a process that recognizes that there are many demands that are placed on those lands. That process is followed.

The minister makes decisions, which the minister is obviously held to account for by the public. But the minister makes his decisions on the basis of detailed reports that come from staff. I do think it's important that people know, when processes are in place, that they are in place and that they will be exercised as they should be under the law.

C. James: I was actually asking the Premier's opinion about the sale of private forest lands. I wasn't asking for the Forests Minister's opinion. I was asking for the Premier personally, his opinion.

It was Mr. Dobell, his adviser, who prepared this report. It was Mr. Dobell, his adviser, who talked about the importance of stability in the land base. I would ask the Premier how he feels, and has he been involved in the sign-off sales of private lands in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think that it's clear that there was a recommendation that we look to establish some certainty in land use planning on the coast of British Columbia. A number of initiatives have been undertaken to try and establish that certainty.

One of the things that's happened is the land use planning work that's been done between communities, first nations, industry and environmental groups to establish a detailed land use plan for the central coast and the north coast that is based, I think, on cooperation amongst all of those groups, to say that yes, we recognize there are additional demands. There are economic and environmental demands.

Obviously, those things are critically important, and I think we've established some significant progress in that regard, which establishes certainty for the communities and the workers and the first nations that are involved in those things.

In establishing the new relationship, we've tried to establish a situation where first nations are included early in the process, not late in the process, where they actually have a stake in the process. In fact, we have a number of first nations agreements that have been made.

We've signed treaties — for example, on Vancouver Island the Maa-nulth treaty is with five first nations on Vancouver Island — which create, I would suggest, some certainty both for those first nations and the communities that are directly impacted and the industries that may decide to work with them. So we have worked with first nations. We have worked with communities.

Mr. Dobell's recommendation was, by definition, a broad-based recommendation about looking at options for creating certainty. I think we have got more certainty today than we had before. But I think it's also important for us to note that there are changes that take place in the land base, changes in demand.

We end up with a situation where a TFL may be excluded, and private lands may be excluded from a TFL. That was something anticipated when the TFL was established. It was anticipated in the 1950s. In fact, it was pointed out that any time…. The documents specifically say: "If at any time lands are found to be required for a higher economic use than raising forest crops, said lands may be withdrawn from the licence area on the consent of the licensor and request by the licensee."

Again, this is a detailed process. It involves many members of the ministry staff examining that, and the minister makes a decision. I think that process, the land use processes, the certainty that we've created, have helped establish that kind of certainty in the long term. I think the softwood lumber agreement helps establish some of that certainty for the industry, and we hope that that will continue on for some time.

C. James: I find it extraordinary that the Premier would stand up and talk about certainty, that this province has created certainty and his government has created certainty on the land base. Let's take a look at what we've got when it comes to the forest industry.

We have a first nations lawsuit against the government. We've had public rallies, many of them across this province, certainly here on the Island. We've seen petitions. We've seen the Auditor General, who is examining how the government is dealing with this issue.

You know, I find it extraordinary that the Premier would even raise certainty, because the government has done absolutely everything to not create certainty and to create crisis in the forest industry.

Once again, we saw the Premier and the Forest Minister paying for a report, a report that was ignored, whether it was raw log exports and a disincentive to raw log exports that was recommended by Mr. Dobell, or whether it was land certainty. The report was commissioned. The report was ignored by government, and they are continuing on with the direction on their

forest policy. I think it's another sad example of this government's direction on forest policy and their lack of support for the communities and the resources that matter to these communities.

With that, I'd like to move on to another topic and talk about the climate action secretariat.

The Chair: At this time, Committee A will take a five-minute recess and reconvene.

C. James: I'd now like to move on to the climate action secretariat. We know that the Premier decided, after years of denying that climate change was a problem…. We can all go back over the track record of this Premier when it comes to denying that B.C. could have any impact — a direct quote from the Premier that B.C. could have no impact on climate change; it was too small a jurisdiction. He fought the Kyoto Accord on implementation. But last year we heard the Premier say that climate change was one of his priorities.

Well, in dealing with that priority we saw the Premier actually set up what is a very complicated structure. I'd like to take a little bit of time to talk about that structure. As we know, the Premier created the climate change secretariat and decided to run it out of his office with most of the budget in the Ministry of Environment, a very unusual process to set up — to have the head of the climate change secretariat working out of the Premier's office but the responsibility sitting with the Ministry of Environment.

Could I have the Premier please explain why he created this complicated bureaucratic system to deal with this issue?

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't think it's that complicated, really. The climate action secretariat came out of the deputy ministers policy group in the Premier's office. The budget is in the Environment Ministry. That's where the budget should be. They do many things in alignment with the Environment Ministry.

Most importantly, a number of the initiatives that they undertake cut across all levels, all areas of government. It's important, as we deal with this issue, that it be comprehensive, that it be cross-government. We have no trouble with the cabinet committee that is helping to guide the initiatives of the climate action secretariat in a cross-government way. The budget is appropriately with Environment, and the action secretariat does report to the cabinet committee.

C. James: Then my question to the Premier: if there is this mix, as we know, between the Premier's office and the Ministry of Environment, where does the ultimate accountability lie — with the Premier's office or with the Ministry of Environment?

Hon. G. Campbell: The responsibilities for climate change and the government's actions in climate change, again, are spread across government. For example, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has responsibility for B.C.'s new energy plan. The Minister of Transportation has the responsibility for the public transit initiatives that are being undertaken. Graham Whitmarsh is the head of the climate action secretariat, and he reports directly to the Deputy Minister to the Premier, as do other deputy ministers.

C. James: As we all know, sometimes problems occur in various structures within government. If there was a problem that occurred with the secretariat — for example, it went over budget or there are budget issues — where does that accountability lie? Does it sit with the Premier's office or the Ministry of Environment?

Hon. G. Campbell: There is a separate vote in the Ministry of Environment. I believe there have been estimates for Environment already. There's a separate vote there. The budget is managed by the corporate staff of the Ministry of Environment, and the Ministry of Environment is accountable for that budget.

C. James: I'd like to take a little bit of time on this and ask the Premier to please talk about how decisions are made in the Premier's office, because the secretariat is in the Premier's office, and then how the budget allocations occur in the Ministry of Environment. How do they manage decisions being made in one place and budget allocations occurring in a completely different ministry?

Hon. G. Campbell: The budget is managed by the financial officer for the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment is accountable for that budget.

The policy recommendations that may come forward to the Cabinet's Committee for Climate Action from the climate action secretariat can be originated in virtually any ministry of government. They come through the climate action secretariat for submission of their reports and their recommendations to the cabinet committee. The cabinet committee makes their decisions and gives their direction.

C. James: Just so I'm clear. The Ministry of Environment is accountable for the budget. It's their job to manage the budget, to make determinations around the budget, but the Premier gets to make decisions because Mr. Whitmarsh reports to the Deputy Minister to the Premier. The Premier actually gets to make the decisions about what gets spent?

Hon. G. Campbell: The climate action secretariat's administrative budget is managed by the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment is accountable for that. The climate action secretariat works across government and manages the flow of information to the Cabinet's Committee for Climate Action.

The Cabinet's Committee for Climate Action receives the reports, receives their recommendations. It considers those reports. It has delegations that come, and they make presentations to the Cabinet's Committee on Climate Action. Then it makes recommendations to cabinet. The cabinet then makes decisions with regards to those.

In terms of the overall budget of government that may be applied to climate action, those are decisions that are made through the budget processes of government, which are first established in terms of the framework by the Minister of Finance, and then there may be, again, recommendations from the climate action committee. The budget is finalized by the Minister of Finance.

C. James: I actually want to get down to the day-to-day spending of that budget — not how the budget is managed in the broad sense across government, but day-to-day decisions. I would presume that Mr. Whitmarsh has spending authority and the ability to be able to make decisions about spending.

I'd ask the Premier then: if Mr. Whitmarsh decided to spend some dollars, would he go to the Ministry of Environment to be able to get authority for spending out of his budget, or would he go to Ms. McDonald, who is the deputy that he reports to, or would he go to the Premier?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, the budget of the climate action secretariat is managed by the executive finance officer of the Environment Ministry — very similar to the kind of budget that they have with the environmental assessment office.

There is a budget that is approved for the climate action secretariat, and Mr. Whitmarsh acts very similarly to other deputies in his position. He's responsible for making those decisions about how those resources are allocated. He may well come to the cabinet committee and ask for direction on specific programs or proposals before any decisions are made by him, but he's responsible for the day-to-day management of that budget.

The Chair: Leader of the Official Opposition. Again, I'll go to the relevance of Vote 10, which is the Office of the Premier's estimates. We did on May 23 pass the climate action secretariat budget during the Ministry of Environment estimates debate.

C. James: Well, if I may….The climate action secretariat, as the Premier has said himself, reports to his deputy minister. His deputy minister is paid for through these budget estimates, which is the relevance.

The Chair: Your question was directly related to the climate action secretariat budget, which was passed on May 23 of this year.

C. James: I'll make sure I refer the questions directly to the Premier's office. Again, because the secretariat is in the Premier's office and because the head of the secretariat reports to the deputy to the Premier, it obviously relates directly to the Premier's budget.

I'd like to ask them again…. The Premier stated that the budget is held within the Ministry of Environment. My question would be to the Premier: why was the decision made, then, to have the head of the climate secretariat and the climate secretariat in the Premier's office and the budget held in a different ministry?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm a little surprised at the Leader of the Opposition. Every deputy minister of every ministry reports to the Deputy Minister to the Premier. She's the head of the public service. Mr. Whitmarsh is no different in that regard.

As I mentioned in my answer earlier, the climate action secretariat was created out of the deputy ministers — meaning all the deputy ministers — policy secretariat. The budget is with the Environment Ministry. The executive financial officer of the Environment Ministry manages those resources, as you point out, that were approved during the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

The climate action secretariat reports through to the climate action committee of the cabinet. The climate action committee makes recommendations to cabinet, and the cabinet makes decisions.

C. James: I just want to get clarification again around the expenditures, because there seems to be, as I said, certainly for the public, some question about why the head of the climate secretariat is in the Premier's office and the budget is held in the Ministry of Environment.

When I look at the budget it appears, as hon. Chair has mentioned, that there is $111 million over three years for the climate change secretariat. My question then would be: if Mr. Whitmarsh is head of the climate change secretariat, reports to the deputy to the Premier and is based in the Premier's office, how is that $111 million over three years managed?

Hon. G. Campbell: As was mentioned earlier, the Environment Ministry's budget and the climate action secretariat's budget has been debated in this committee room, and it has been passed. The climate action secretariat makes recommendations to the climate action committee of cabinet. The cabinet committee makes recommendations to cabinet, and decisions are made by cabinet.

The actual budget for the climate action secretariat that was passed was already debated in estimates. It has been approved. Mr. Whitmarsh is the head of the climate action secretariat, and he's the one that's responsible for the day-to-day administration of those costs.

C. James: Then I'd like to get into the specifics of exactly what happens with that budget, what happens around the climate change secretariat in the Premier's office.

He mentioned that Mr. Whitmarsh is in charge of that coordination of the climate change secretariat. If

we take a look at how that budget is managed, I'd like to just talk about a couple of specifics in that area. That would be around contracts. How much of those resources is Mr. Whitmarsh allocating towards outside contracts? Do those then get reported through the deputy to the Premier…?

The Chair: Leader of the Opposition. Just again from the Chair, I believe the relevance to Vote 10 is not there. I believe what you're referring to…. You're certainly speaking of specifics. You've mentioned that more than once on the climate action secretariat budget, which was dealt with in these chambers and passed on May 23. So just as a cautionary note, I'd ask you to bring your questions back to Vote 10.

C. James: Thank you. I'd like to talk about the relationship, then, between Mr. Whitmarsh and the deputy to the Premier. As decisions are made on how allocations are spent in the climate change secretariat, does Mr. Whitmarsh go to the deputy to the Premier to discuss those allocations?

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Whitmarsh acts as any other deputy minister in government.

C. James: I'd just like to ask clarification, then, of the Premier and perhaps of yourself as Chair as well. My understanding is that the $111 million is separate and apart from the Ministry of Environment's budget that, in fact, was passed and that the $111 million is spent in different places across government, including policy development and legislation. So I'd just like the Premier to provide that clarification, if he could.

Hon. G. Campbell: There is $15 million a year which has been allocated to the climate action secretariat. There is a contingency amount which has been approved in the estimates of the Ministry of Finance under Vote 45 of $62 million.

C. James: Could the Premier then describe how that $15 million is allocated?

Hon. G. Campbell: In the allocation of the budget that was approved as part of the Ministry of Environment, there are 18 FTEs with an operating budget of $15.4 million. There is $8.83 million for climate action outreach, including communication initiatives. There is $4 million for policy coordination. Those are the 18 FTEs that I referred to. There is $2.625 million for climate action research, including studies and contracts.

The Chair: Just once again to the Leader of the Opposition before we go, what we're discussing is Vote 10, which is the Office of the Premier's estimates. What you're referring to is Vote 30 under the climate action secretariat budget, which was discussed on May 23 and passed under the Ministry of Environment budget estimates.

C. James: I'd like to speak about some of the people working on contract to the climate change secretariat. I'd like to ask the Premier: is Mark Jaccard a contractor to the climate action secretariat?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I believe that this could have been canvassed during the Environment budget and should rightly have been canvassed at that time.

I can say that there's one specific contract with Mark Jaccard, and there is one specific contract with M.K. Jaccard and Associates Inc.

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, subject to your direction, but we're following a line of questioning that was appropriate in the Ministry of Environment's estimates, which have already been considered.

I have told the Leader of the Opposition that there are two contracts. One is to Mark Jaccard, and I believe the other is to M.K. Jaccard and Associates. I understand that there was discussion in the Environment Ministry with regard to the budget, and I refer the leader back to the Environment estimates for the detailed responses to her questions.

I'd be glad to introduce or to discuss with the Leader of the Opposition policy questions, but I'm really not in the position to carry out an estimates discussion in regards to the Ministry of Environment.

The Chair: If I could urge the Leader of the Opposition to tie her questions into Vote 10.

C. James: I'd just like to point out the problem and the challenge that creates for everyone, including the public.

Just to use an example to the Premier and ask him to please explain it. In fact, we put in requests through freedom of information for information about polling that was occurring through the climate change secretariat.

We put in the request, as the Premier has identified — a budget held by the Ministry of Environment. We put in a request to the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment came back and said there was no record and in fact referred us to the Premier's office, where the secretariat is contained. That was their example and request to us. I'd like the Premier please to explain that discrepancy.

Hon. G. Campbell: I understand that Mr. Whitmarsh was made aware of the freedom-of-information request. The poll that was requested was up on a website, and it's publicly available to the opposition and to anyone else who cares to look at the poll.

C. James: I'd just like to read to the Premier the occurrence that happened, in fact. That polling was put on the website a couple of weeks after we put in our

requests for polling information, and it said "no records." We then we got a letter back from the Premier's office to look on the climate action secretariat website, which in fact is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment.

It comes back to the confusion that the Premier has created by trying to put the head of the secretariat and the secretariat in his office and the budget somewhere else. The accountability lies with the Premier's office, because he said clearly that the head of the secretariat reports to the deputy to the Premier, who is based in his office. Therefore, the responsibility is directly in his office.

I'd like to ask the Premier what kind of role his office has directly in the polling.

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me reiterate again for the Leader of the Opposition that Mr. Whitmarsh reports to the Deputy Minister of the Premier, just as other deputy ministers across government report to the Deputy Minister of the Premier. He is the head of the climate action secretariat. The budget is in Environment. The information that the Leader of the Opposition requested was put on the website, and it's fully available for the public, for their own information.

The Chair: Leader of the Opposition, if I could further remind you to direct your questions and tie them into the budget estimates for the Office of the Premier and Vote 10.

C. James: Thank you, hon. Chair. This relates to someone who reports to the deputy in the Premier's office, which is related to the vote and the Premier's budget.

My question is, again, to the Premier. Is it not different to have someone who is based in the Premier's office…? I understand that the deputies report to the Deputy Minister to the Premier. But I would suggest to the Premier and I would ask the Premier: does he see it as a different line of accountability when you have the secretariat based in the Premier's office?

Hon. G. Campbell: I explained earlier that Mr. Whitmarsh, as with other deputy ministers, reports to the Deputy Minister to the Premier. The budget allocation is managed out of the Ministry of Environment and has been approved on May 23, as was mentioned by the previous Chair.

I think the important thing is that the climate action initiatives of this government are across government. We are trying to assure that all ministries are coordinated in their efforts to reduce the impacts of greenhouse gases, to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt with and to mitigate the challenges that are created by climate change. It is a cross-government initiative, and I think that this is appropriate and in line with sensible practice.

C. James: I'd like to come back to the polling information. It was the Office of the Premier that told us to look at the website, based on the climate secretariat putting those results up. So I would like to ask: did the deputy to the Premier or the Premier himself get a look at those polling results before they were posted on the website?

Hon. G. Campbell: The poll results were on the way to the cabinet committee. As is always the case, anything subject to section 12 is reviewed by my deputy. The deputy gave the direction that they should be put on the website.

C. James: Could the Premier please explain, then, why the Ministry of Environment stated they had no documents or records at all related to the poll?

The Chair: Leader of the Opposition, could I caution you that we're here to discuss the budget estimates for the Office of the Premier. Maybe you'd like to change your direction of question so that we can do this.

C. James: The head of the climate change secretariat is based in the Premier's office and reports to the deputy minister. I think the Premier has just pointed out exactly the challenge there is and the difficulty and the problem that the Premier himself has created by having the budget based in one place and decisions being made somewhere else.

The Premier himself talked about the $62 million in contingency that was there. So my question would be: who makes the decisions on the spending of that? Is it Mr. Whitmarsh, who reports to the Deputy Minister to the Premier?

Hon. G. Campbell: Submissions are received by Treasury Board. Treasury Board reviews those submissions, and those recommendations from Treasury Board go to cabinet.

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't want to say that this is always the case, but it would not be unusual for the climate action secretariat to first come to the climate action committee of cabinet for consideration. If there's approval from the climate action committee of cabinet, that would go to Treasury Board for their consideration and recommendation to cabinet. The final decision would in all cases be made by cabinet.

C. James: Can the Premier please confirm whether the climate change secretariat is subject to freedom of information?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, the climate action secretariat is subject to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation.

C. James: Could the Premier please talk a little bit about how the climate change team is going to report to the public and engage the public in discussions around this critical issue?

Hon. G. Campbell: The public initiatives of the climate action secretariat and the government with regard to climate change take a number of forms. First, we have invited selected members of the public to come and make presentations to the cabinet committee. The climate action secretariat has met with, including ministries, over 400 different organizations across the province. We have had sectoral meetings which were attended by either ministers or the climate action secretariat or a combination of the two. We have had public meetings.

Obviously, we have a number of public discussions that have taken place. That will be ongoing. In the future there will be a major public initiative to inform people with regard to the opportunities they have for significant savings with regard to activities that they may take to benefit themselves and their own budgets.

Every ministry in government has been discussing the climate action initiatives across government. The Ministry of Education has been talking about it with school boards. We have had discussions with our universities and our hospital authorities about it. We've had discussions with regard to economic development and the Business Council about it. Health has been meeting with health authorities about it, as I've mentioned.

This goes across all areas of government and will include all communities and the people of British Columbia over the years ahead.

C. James: We have a forest round table, which we canvassed just before this issue, where it's invitation-only. We now have a climate action secretariat that is selected members of the public, invitation and selected to talk to the government — again, a typical pattern that we see from this government.

I'd like to ask the Premier. He mentioned a number here that I know he has used before — the fact that 175 groups have made submissions to cabinet. The Premier made a commitment that he was going to release those names of groups and submissions. We're still waiting. The public is still waiting. The press is still waiting.

I now hear from the Premier that he has met with 400 organizations, or that 400 organizations have been included. Will the Premier release the names of all of those organizations and groups?

Hon. G. Campbell: Just for the sake of clarity, the climate action secretariat has met with almost 400 separate organizations, groups and individuals in terms of carrying out their responsibilities. When the climate action secretariat or any member of the climate action secretariat goes and makes a presentation, they invite people to make a presentation to submit, to inform the climate action secretariat of the issues that they feel are critical for government's consideration. They have taken every request for a meeting to date that I am aware of or that Mr. Whitmarsh is aware of. That's one group, which is the climate action secretariat.

The Cabinet's Committee for Climate Action has had a number of presentations made to it. A commitment was made by myself that that list of presenters to the cabinet committee would be appended to the climate action plan. I expect the climate action plan to be ready and submitted to the public within weeks.

I also have said that it doesn't make sense to have a climate action plan that's based on what may happen in the Legislature. There are a number of bills that are before the Legislature for consideration. If those bills are passed, the determination of what takes place in the climate action plan will be clearly reflected in that climate action plan. The public will have a comprehensive review of all the actions that government is taking to reduce our greenhouse gases by up to 33 percent by 2020, in the first phase.

C. James: On an issue that the Premier says is one of his top priorities and on an issue that is of great importance to all British Columbians, I find it…. As I said, it continues to astound me that this is a government that does things without engaging the public, without letting people know who's involved, by invitation only, by "selected members of the public" — as the Premier has used, in his own words — rather than engaging the public over the last year, as the Premier had the opportunity to do.

I'd like to ask the Premier: has the climate change secretariat had any open public meetings — not invitation-only and not only people that the Premier wants at the table but public meetings?

Hon. G. Campbell: It's not unusual for the climate action secretariat to make presentations to open meetings. In fact, many of the meetings that they're invited to are open meetings. I've made presentations at open meetings.

I think it's important to note that there must be some public input here. We've got over 120 municipalities that have signed onto the climate action charter in terms of themselves and their communities across the province of British Columbia.

Candidly, I think, we have taken a number of significant steps in British Columbia. We hope that we'll be able to take more as we go through this legislative session, which will put us in a position to start to meet the targets which have been set for 2020. I think there are important initiatives that are underway.

We welcome the public's input, and we welcome their encouragement, as we've seen over the last year. We will continue to work with all members of the public, with members of the community. The climate action team has been established to look at economically viable ways of building on the work that's been done to date.

The province has had recognition from other jurisdictions about the initiatives that we're undertaking. We don't pretend that it's in any way definitive. We don't pretend that we have got all the answers. We've been working on creating those answers and those solutions with members of the public. Members of our

academic institutions, researchers, scientists, community groups, environmentalists and business sectors — all have been involved in trying to help develop a climate action plan that would help British Columbia as a jurisdiction not just to become more competitive and more productive but to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020.

C. James: I guess that's a no from the Premier — that they haven't held public meetings. Invitations to Mr. Whitmarsh, Mr. Whitmarsh follows through on, and invitations to the Premier, he follows through on, but the secretariat hasn't in fact held public meetings.

When I talk to the public around British Columbia, they want to be engaged in this issue. They want to have an opportunity to talk about what they like and don't like about the direction the government is taking. They want to do their part for climate change. They want to make a difference. They want to be involved in the discussions, and they have not been involved in the discussions. The Premier made a decision about what he was going to do and what direction he was going to go and put that direction out.

I'd like to look at some of the specifics around the climate action secretariat. One of the commitments that has been made is a public engagement plan to be done. We left the '07 fiscal year. There was a promise that that was going to be done. We've seen no announcement, so I'd like to ask the Premier: what's the progress of that public engagement plan?

Hon. G. Campbell: The public outreach program and engagement program involves a number of specific actions that we intend to take.

We have already hosted the youth climate leadership alliance meeting, where we encouraged youth from across British Columbia to join us in undertaking initiatives. We will be establishing a citizens conservation council for representation across the province. We will be establishing the LiveSmart B.C. branding program, which creates not only a Web presence but also the collateral material to encourage individuals to participate as they see fit.

We will continue working with initiatives similar to the adaptation conference that we hosted here in British Columbia. We will continue to do sectoral meetings as we go through the next number of months and through the next two to three years. We will continue to work with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to meet the challenges of reducing urban sprawl, improving the transportation system, etc.

All of that will be part of the outreach and engagement program that will be carried out by government.

C. James: The commitment was to put together in the '07-08 year a public engagement plan. The Premier has mentioned a lot of activities taking place, but I'd like to ask again: what happened to the public engagement plan that was promised by the secretariat to be ready for '07-08?

Hon. G. Campbell: We have been engaging with the public throughout. I just mentioned a number of areas where we already met with the public. We will be continuing to meet with the public on that. There has been public engagement with almost 400 separate groups in the public — representatives of the public, individuals from the public, etc. So the engagement plan has been, frankly, growing over the last year. The citizens conservation council will be put in place this year. The youth climate leadership alliance has been established. The first meeting has been had.

We have a network of young people from across the province of British Columbia working to develop new ways of reaching out to the younger people in British Columbia who are very concerned about their future. We're being guided by them in terms of those things. The work is being done, and I'm sure that the climate action secretariat will continue to build on that work of the past year as we go into the years ahead.

C. James: Could the Premier please tell me who is responsible for this public engagement plan? Is it Mr. Whitmarsh? Is it the Premier himself? Is it the Ministry of Environment?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the head public servant responsible, Mr. Whitmarsh is responsible for the public service activities. The Minister of Environment has the service plan, and he will be responsible for ensuring that that takes place over the next couple of years.

C. James: Just so I'm clear again, then. The Ministry of Environment is ultimately responsible for the public engagement plan?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned on a number of occasions this afternoon, Mr. Whitmarsh will make recommendations. The Minister of Environment will be the accountable government officer.

C. James: As we know, in March of this year Louise Comeau was the climate change secretariat's public outreach and engagement director. She was fired. Could the Premier please explain why she was let go?

C. James: We know and it was made public that Miss Comeau was given a four-month severance package. Could the Premier please tell us how much that package was worth? I'm certain that with Mr. Whitmarsh there, the information, I'm sure, is readily available.

Hon. G. Campbell: Unfortunately, I have not been able to retrieve the exact figure, but it will be in Public Accounts.

C. James: Just another question to the Premier, then. Have there been any other departures from the climate change secretariat?

Hon. G. Campbell: As I understand it, there has been a small degree of turnover, as is typical of any organization.

C. James: I'd now like to talk about the Premier's commitment to make the public service carbon-neutral by 2010. Could the Premier please tell me who is included as part of the public service?

Hon. G. Campbell: The core areas of government are covered in our commitment to make British Columbia's government carbon-neutral by 2010. Also hospital authorities, Crown corporations, school boards, universities, colleges and institutes that are under the auspices of the Crown.

C. James: I've included school boards, municipalities, hospital boards and, as the Premier said, Crown corporations. My understanding is that the Premier is looking at carbon neutrality happening by developing a carbon trust. There's a cost to that.

My question is: is the Premier in discussions about how school boards or hospital authorities, for example, will cover off these additional costs?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, for the sake of clarity, let me be clear that municipalities are not included in the core areas of government. In the core area of government there are hospital authorities, Crown corporations, school boards, universities, colleges, and there are groups like BCIT — not municipalities.

Many municipalities have voluntarily decided to sign the climate action charter in their municipality. That does not require them, but they have committed to trying, to become carbon-neutral by 2012. I believe the number is something in the order of 125, or a number similar to that, municipalities.

We have just embarked on a major initiative, for example, with school boards, where representatives of the climate action secretariat go out. They provide those school boards with an understanding of how they measure their carbon, how they can reduce their carbon and the steps that they can take to make themselves more carbon-neutral. We're not in a position where we can say what will take place at this point until those discussions are complete.

But I can say that virtually every institution that I've talked about has embraced this idea, has engaged the idea of reducing government's greenhouse gas emissions. I'm encouraged by the kind of response that we've had from representatives of the core area of government and others who have been involved in looking at how they can reduce their greenhouse gases in British Columbia.

C. James: I'll come back again, then, to the costs. I don't have any dispute that people want to be engaged in being carbon-neutral. They want to be engaged in reducing their footprint. Everyone wants to do their part. But if I take a look at just a couple of the examples that the Premier has outlined, whether it's school boards or universities or colleges — who are dealing with strapped budgets, who are dealing with challenges currently — we know there will be a cost to this in addition to the costs that they're already having to put out.

My question would be to the Premier. Is the climate change secretariat looking at those additional costs and calculating them?

Hon. G. Campbell: The first step of becoming carbon-neutral is to appropriately measure your carbon footprint. That's the first stage that we're in right now. As I mentioned there is a team from climate action that is going out and dealing with that directly. I can tell you that in the communities of Vancouver and Victoria the education programs that they're providing are oversubscribed. We expect we're going to see more of that.

Actually, I don't concur with the Leader of the Opposition that there will necessarily be additional costs. There may be some upfront costs, but those costs will be offset by long-term operational savings. In fact, we think that there are significant long-term operational savings in terms of how we design our buildings and how we respond to the challenges of climate change so that we reduce our greenhouse gases.

I think that the first objective we all have is to have significant reduction in the impact we have in terms of greenhouse gases. The engagement that we've seen from people to date has been significant. If, in fact, they are not able to reduce their greenhouse gases to a carbon-neutral position by 2010, they will be in a position where they can buy offsets in 2011 to cover the cost of that. At this point we can't say what the costs will be.

In fact, I am not one of the people that buys into the argument that says we can't change without significant costs. I think that there are substantial savings, substantial long-term operational savings, for our hospitals, for our school boards. There is ample evidence that our schools are more effective when they're designed with this in mind. Our hospitals are more effective when they're designed with these environmental impacts in mind.

So part of this is to share information, to build understanding, to find explicit and specific actions that can be taken that will reduce greenhouse gases and to do this in partnership with the agencies of government and, frankly, agencies outside of government who are looking to reduce their greenhouse gas load.

C. James: To the Premier, then: he's admitted that there may be costs to all of those bodies: school boards, universities, colleges. There may be additional costs. Is the Premier looking at any kind of budgets to assist those bodies in either the costs — remembering that

this is only 2010, that the work has to be done to address carbon neutrality — or with any additional supports for helping those bodies move to carbon neutrality?

We have many old schools in school districts that will be difficult and will need additional resources to retrofit. Is the Premier expecting that to come out of existing budgets, or is the Premier looking at putting aside some additional resources to support those public bodies?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I think it's important to note that what we are doing is building a partnership with members of the public sector in providing them with information about how to measure their greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

We're working with B.C. Hydro right now on a conservation agreement that we think will be beneficial to all public agencies. We have seen that be beneficial to the core areas of government. We think that it can be beneficial to areas like hospital boards, school boards, etc.

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we have to look at restoration of our facilities with different eyes in view of the objectives that we've set for ourselves in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I think that it's critical that we do that together. The engagement that we intend to pursue is one which includes individuals, citizens, municipalities and groups in the core area of government.

Again, I can tell you from the experience I've had in dealing with parent advisory councils and school boards, specifically, and hospital authorities. I think it's really important for us to note that we are in a position where we are going to be successful with this. We are going to have all of the public agencies working with regard to this. I think there are savings to be found in the public sector that can help fund this. As well, there will be additional opportunities for resources to help meet those needs in the future.

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, before you call the vote, I would like to make one correction to my comments yesterday.

I noted that the Deputy Ministers Council had directed a cross-government memo be sent out to remind contractors, to acknowledge them, of their potential responsibilities under the Lobbyists Registration Act. That action was directed, but I was informed later yesterday afternoon by the Ministry of Finance that the memo is being finalized subject to legal counsel and has not yet been sent out as I had stated yesterday. I had understood that it had been distributed. It will be sent out in the near future. I can confirm that once it is sent out, the government will be providing a copy to the opposition.

I should note further that as I said yesterday, this was meant as a reminder to heighten potential contractors' awareness with regard to this. The current contractual requirement and general service agreement already indicates that contractors must abide by all applicable laws.

Hon. G. Campbell: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of the Office of the Premier 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.