2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Home Inspection Act, 2007 (Bill

M220)

Thorne

Local Government Conflict of

Interest Act, 2007 (Bill M221)

Sather

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Texas and Kelowna police cancer

fundraiser

Hawkins

Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion

fundraising events

Horgan

Terry Fox Foundation fundraising

events

H. Bloy

Clinton Annual Ball

C. Wyse

Heights neighbourhood Hats Off

Day celebration

R. Lee

Seniors service organizations

Conroy

Oral Questions

Government responsibility for

lottery regulation

C. James

Hon. J.

Les

Gentner

Ralston

Simpson

Performance bonus for B.C.

Lottery Corporation CEO

Fleming

Hon. J.

Les

J. Kwan

Solicitor General response to

B.C. Lottery Corporation issues

Chudnovsky

Hon. J.

Les

Simpson

Performance bonus for B.C.

Lottery Corporation CEO

Simpson

Hon. J.

Les

Impact of Canada line

construction on Cambie Street businesses

Robertson

Hon. K.

Falcon

Out-of-province medical expenses

for Creston family

C. Evans

Hon. G.

Abbott

Point of Privilege

D. Chudnovsky

Petitions

N. Simons

J. Horgan

C. Trevena

B. Simpson

G. Coons

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

(continued)

C. James

Hon. G.

Campbell

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal

Relations and Reconciliation (continued)

Fraser

MacKay

Hon. M.

de Jong

C. Wyse

Simpson

Horgan

Gentner

[ Page 8301 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2007

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

C. James: In the House today we have a couple of Victoria–Beacon Hill constituents. We have Erik Kaye, his wife Nancy Singh and their son Ravi. Visiting them from California are Ravi's grandparents Daljit and Katherine Singh and his great-grandmother Laverne Lowe. Would the House please join me in welcoming all of them and also wishing Ravi a very happy first birthday.

[1335]

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have three distinguished visitors from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Vancouver. Taiwan is our fifth trading partner. Last year exports from British Columbia to Taiwan reached $535 million, the highest ever.

Would the House please join me in giving the warmest welcome to the new Director General Chung-Chen Kung and his wife Mrs. Triffie Kung, as well as Deputy Director General Jeffrey Kau, on their first visit to this House.

L. Krog: I would like to introduce to the House Nelson and Donna Allen, son Blair and daughter Barbara. Nelson and Donna have the distinction of being the dynamic duo of the Nanaimo school board. They're both school trustees in our city and community activists. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

R. Sultan: In the precinct today are 33 grade 5 students and their teacher Ms. Milva Barichello of Holy Trinity Elementary School in my riding. Since it was founded 50 years ago by Father Kilty, this school has been tending to the intellectual, physical and spiritual needs of its students very well. I'm looking forward to meeting them later. I ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

M. Farnworth: On behalf of our caucus, it's my pleasure to introduce 47 individuals who work hard so that we can do our jobs effectively here. Those are our constituency assistants, who are over here in Victoria for their annual conference.

I'd also like at this point to let the House know that one of those constituents — the individual who works for me — a young man named Mr. Brad West, is celebrating his 22nd birthday.

V. Roddick: In the gallery today are Genevieve Jin Liang Cote and her mother Angie. Genevieve is a grade 4 student at Delta Christian School in Ladner, where she's studying about our federal, provincial and municipal governments.

To quote her mother: "She thought it would be a cool plan to visit the Legislature today, on her ninth birthday." I would like to say that the enthusiastic birthday choir in the dining room earlier was fantastic. Will the House please make them both very welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: Today visiting us in the House are students from McBride Elementary School and their teacher Mr. Hartney. These students go to school and live in the very finest constituency in British Columbia — that would be Vancouver-Kensington — and I hope everyone will make them welcome.

S. Hawkins: On behalf of Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Doug and Diane

Corbishley, who are in the gallery this afternoon. Doug and Diane are visiting from Okanagan Falls. They are constituents of Mr. Speaker and were his guests for lunch today. Will all members please join me in making them feel welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: In the precincts today are 50 students from McNair Secondary School in my riding. I would ask the House please make them welcome. They're joined by their teacher Ms. Scarr.

J. Brar: Visiting us today are 41 students from Surrey Khalsa School. They're accompanied by two teachers, Vasanthi T and Rana Phull. I would like to ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

R. Hawes: Today in the gallery I also have some visitors — 28 grade 5 students from Cherry Hill Elementary School that are accompanied by their teachers Joanne Heron and Kate Ross. Could the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

HOME INSPECTION ACT, 2007

D. Thorne presented a bill intituled Home Inspection Act, 2007.

D. Thorne: I move introduction of the Home Inspection Act, 2007, for first reading.

[1340]

Motion approved.

D. Thorne: The purchase of a new home is the largest transaction that most consumers will ever make, and the quality and durability of a home is integral to the consumer's physical, mental and financial well-being. Few homebuyers have the technical knowledge for complete assessment of a new home or homebuilder, particularly given the complexity of current construction methods and codes.

B.C. homebuyers hire home inspectors to tell them if their new home is a good, solid investment. Unfortunately, because B.C. has no home inspection regulations, anyone can claim to be a certified home inspector, and that's a big risk for consumers.

[ Page 8302 ]

I am introducing this private member's bill because I believe that government does have a responsibility to protect consumers from unscrupulous and fraudulent persons who may only have a home inspector licence because they purchased it on the Internet. This bill will establish the first home inspection board in Canada, which will establish standards of practice and basic requirements for licensed home inspectors.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members of this House to support regulation for home inspection. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M220, Home Inspection Act, 2007, 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.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT, 2007

M. Sather presented a bill intituled Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, 2007.

M. Sather: I move introduction of the Local Government Conflict of Interest Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

M. Sather: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, 2007. This act would amend the Community Charter by adding a

section entitled "Restrictions on benefiting from rezoning decisions."

The amendment states that a council member must not realize a pecuniary benefit from the sale of property, the rezoning of which was voted on by the council member. A former council member must not realize a pecuniary benefit from the sale of property, the rezoning of which was voted on by the council member, for a period of two years after leaving office. A person who contravenes this

section is disqualified from holding office on a local government for three years from the date of the vote to which the disqualification relates.

Mr. Speaker, for far too long elected officials at the local government level have been able to benefit financially from rezoning decisions they participated in on council. The law currently requires a member of council to not vote or participate in the discussion of a motion where they have a current conflict of interest.

Unfortunately, this does not prevent them from benefiting in the future from the decisions they participate in on council. For example, an active realtor on a council can vote to rezone property to a higher value. That person can subsequently participate in the sale of the rezoned property, thus gaining a financial benefit as a result of a council decision they participated in.

The public is aware of this conflict situation and are often astounded that it is permitted. This bill will correct the conflict and provide the public greater confidence in the conduct of local government.

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

Bill M221, Local Government Conflict of Interest Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) TEXAS AND KELOWNA POLICE

CANCER FUNDRAISER

S. Hawkins: Last June a bike relay team from the Houston, Texas, police department rode into Victoria to celebrate their 25th annual bike relay to benefit leukemia and lymphoma research. They were honoured by President Bush in the Rose Garden, and this year the President's mother Barbara Bush is the honorary chair of their ride.

I was so inspired last year by these cops from Texas that I introduced them to Cops for Kids in Kelowna. Kelowna Cops for Kids is a local charity organized by our RCMP, which focuses on raising funds for families in Kelowna and the Okanagan who have a seriously ill or disabled child.

Together the Houston police department and our Kelowna Cops for Kids will leave on June 12 from NASA, Texas, to NASA, Florida, on a bike relay to benefit leukemia research and Cops for Kids. As the honorary chair of the Team Canada NASA to NASA ride, I'll be cheering on our riders — Brad Field; John MacKay; Roger Soar; Kelly Murphy, who is injured now, unfortunately; Mark Hickman; and Brent St. John — who will cover 2,000 miles in six days and 100-plus degree weather.

[1345]

We've raised over $35,000 for this ride, but the best

part is that the Houston police department and Cops for Kids will ride from Texas to Kelowna in June 2008. We look forward to giving them a great big welcome to wine country.

Of course, the very reason we ride is to help children like Connor Fennessy. Connor has been on chemo and radiation for a year, battling Ewing sarcoma bone cancer. Last week Connor was told the cancer had spread, and as I speak, he's having an amputation of his leg — 16 years old, a very brave and courageous kid.

I ask the House to honour Kelowna Cops for Kids and the Houston police department bike relay team for bringing the cure 2,000 miles closer for kids like Connor.

RICK HANSEN WHEELS IN MOTION

FUNDRAISING EVENTS

J. Horgan: It has been 20 years since a young man from Williams Lake returned from the most incredible world tour ever undertaken. After two years, two months and two days, through 32 countries and over 40,000 kilometres, Rick Hansen wheeled into the hearts and minds of all Canadians.

[ Page 8303 ]

Hero is a word often overused, but in the case of Rick Hansen it is fitting. His contribution to spinal cord research and his role as an ambassador for commitment and perseverance put him in a league of his own.

It's been 20 years this past week since Rick returned triumphantly to Vancouver, but his work and the work of many thousands of others continues to this day. June 10 marks the fifth anniversary of the Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion event, where Canadians in 140 cities — 45 right here in British Columbia — come together to raise money and awareness for spinal cord injuries.

Here in Victoria the event begins at Ogden Point, with registration at 11 a.m. and the event rolling up Dallas Road at noon. In Duncan people can gather at city square early in the day to watch or participate in the annual wheelchair rugby event. For more information, please visit www.rickhansen.com and just click on Wheels in Motion.

I challenge all members of this House to make June 10 the most successful event to date. Get out and support Rick Hansen and spinal cord injuries in your community.

TERRY FOX FOUNDATION

FUNDRAISING EVENTS

H. Bloy: It's a pleasure to be here today to speak about the Terry Fox Foundation. Terry Fox was raised in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. He was only 18 years of age when he was diagnosed with cancer, and he was forced to have his right leg amputated above the knee.

While Terry was in hospital, he was so overcome by the suffering of other cancer patients — many of them being young children — that he decided to run across Canada to raise money for cancer research. He called his journey the Marathon of Hope.

Terry passed away on June 28, 1981, at the age of 22. This heroic Canadian was gone, but his legacy was just beginning. Each year thousands of Canadians organize and take

part in non-competitive Terry Fox runs in Canada and around the world, raising money for cancer research.

This year the Terry Fox Run takes place on September 16, and I encourage everyone to partake in the run. I remember running in the very first run in New Westminster at Queen's Park.

This year on September 14, the Terry Fox Foundation is introducing a new national fundraising opportunity for workplaces called "The Terry Fox at Work Day." Workplaces and businesses across the country will be holding cancer fundraising events of their choice, with the feature event being the Great Canadian Head Shave. I look forward to seeing many of my colleagues improve their looks with a clean-shaven head.

[1350]

I hope that you will all join me in this Great Canadian Head Shave on September 14 and also the Terry Fox Run on September 16 to raise money in this fight against this very terrible disease. I will be sending information to all members of the House.

CLINTON ANNUAL BALL

C. Wyse: I rise today to tell the House about the longest-running event in Canadian history that takes place annually in the small community of Clinton on Highway 97 in my constituency of Cariboo South. That event is known far and wide as the Clinton Ball. It has taken place continuously since 1868 through two world wars and the Great Depression. Through the good times and the hard times, the Clinton Ball has been held each year, and its longevity is a tribute to the citizens of that community.

On the recent May long weekend my wife and I joined guests from around B.C. to celebrate the 140th anniversary of the ball. In 1868 the first grand ball was held in the Clinton Hotel, considered to be the biggest and best hotel on the Cariboo Road during the gold rush.

In those early days the ball was established as a way to help recent arrivals feel more comfortable in their new homes and was the culmination of several days of celebration. Guests travelled to the ball from as far away as San Francisco and Chicago, and women wore their finest ball gowns for the occasion.

Today the Clinton Ball committee, headed by Mrs. Doris Gates, continues to make guests feel most welcome in their community. They decorate the community hall on a theme, and many of the guests arrive in period costume. Given the committee's successful planning and organizing, the event sells out quickly. I, like many other guests, have already purchased my ticket for next year.

I ask the House to join with me in recognizing the volunteer spirit of the citizens of Clinton. Their commitment ensures the continued success of this historical Canadian event, the Clinton Ball.

HEIGHTS NEIGHBOURHOOD

HATS OFF DAY CELEBRATION

R. Lee: The Heights is a vibrant neighbourhood in my community of North Burnaby. It has beautiful views, parks and trails, recreational amenities and a thriving business district, all within walking distance. The Heights commercial district has been a special outdoor shopping area for nearly 100 years now.

Today Burnaby's diversity is very apparent in this distinct and historic

section of Hastings Street. Heights merchants are well known for welcoming their

[ Page 8304 ]

customers as family, and it's in this spirit that they welcome everyone to the Heights.

The first Saturday in June every year is Hats Off Day in the Heights. It is the day of the year when the merchants of the Heights shopping district show their appreciation for their customers and the community. Hats Off Day is a huge one-day extravaganza featuring a colourful parade with real local flavour and a big street party, where all of the merchants are out in front with treats, giveaways, draws, prizes and special promotions.

The event is so named as Heights merchants take their hats off to their customers and to the community during this all-day celebration. Voted Burnaby's best festival by Burnaby Now readers for the last three years, this year's event will take place this Saturday, June 2 from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Included in this event is the Hats Off Day parade with the popular motorcycle brigade to start the festivities and the annual show-and-shine, displaying some of the lower mainland's oldest and unique vehicles in a three-block-long car show.

I would like to encourage everyone to come out to Hats Off Day and enjoy this day of celebration with the Heights community of Burnaby North.

SENIORS SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

K. Conroy: As the session draws to a close, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge a number of groups in my constituency and across the province who work hard on behalf of seniors, and all of us actually. The hard-working provincial coalition of COSCO, the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C., who advocate continually on seniors' behalf, have implemented a health promotion project helping seniors across the province.

I recently met with Rudy Lawrence, Art Kube and Bill Steemson to discuss this and other issues. The three were in Castlegar sharing information at the Conversation on Health.

I want to take a moment to personally thank Bill Steemson, who not only came to Castlegar with Art and Rudy but has been at every single Conversation on Health held across the province. At all of them he made sure that seniors issues were raised as he greeted the people going into the conversations. That is an incredible commitment for a volunteer.

Locally in my constituency there are a number of groups who also have contributed significantly to seniors health and well-being over the past year — so many that I can't name them all in two minutes.

[1355]

But I do want to acknowledge the ongoing work of the women's hospital auxiliary groups, the seniors involved in coordinating seniors centres and some specific ones, like the health watch groups who sponsored the excellent research project showing the need of seniors in our region.

One other group I also want to acknowledge is the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Seniors, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that seniors in the Greater Trail district receive the care and respect they deserve.

One last group I want to acknowledge and thank is a group of people who advocate not only for seniors across the province but for all constituents. These would be the unsung heroes who work hard to make sure that all of the day-to-day problems and issues that arise in our constituencies are solved. They work with us every day and sometimes at night to ensure that we get our job done.

I want to thank our constituency assistants, whose untiring commitment to their jobs and to the people of this province often doesn't get the recognition it so justly deserves.

So to all of you, I say thank you. We couldn't do it without you.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY

FOR LOTTERY REGULATION

C. James: Last December the Solicitor General told the public that all gaming systems in B.C. were "subject to rigorous and extensive testing, and no issues have surfaced." Well, today we learned that wasn't true. The Lottery Corporation knew there were huge problems and did nothing, and the minister's investigation was simply a whitewash.

To the Premier: why, from the minister on down, is no one being held accountable for this cover-up?

Hon. J. Les: Today the Ombudsman has released her report in terms of the lottery operations of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. She has found a number of shortcomings. She has made 27 recommendations. Those recommendations are all accepted by government, and they will be implemented as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: Well, the Ombudsman report goes beyond saying shortcomings. The Ombudsman report points out incompetence by this government and B.C. Lottery Corporation. The government knew that consumers were at risk of fraud and theft and did nothing.

Again to the Premier: given that the minister and his team are the ones responsible for putting people's money at risk, why are they being entrusted to fix the mess that they created? Why is the Premier letting everyone off the hook? When will he hold the minister accountable for this cover-up?

Hon. J. Les: I've already said earlier today that these results are clearly unacceptable. They're unacceptable to me, they're unacceptable to my colleagues, and they will be fixed. Not only are all of the recommendations going to be implemented by this government and by the B.C. Lottery Corporation, but we are also going to have an outside auditor come in to

[ Page 8305 ]

review the operations of the Lottery Corporation and the gaming policy and enforcement branch to ensure that in the future these circumstances do not occur again.

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

C. James: It's fine for the minister to say that the recommendations are important and the findings are unacceptable. We heard the head of the Lottery Corporation say that he was sorry. That's all fine, but that still leaves the question: who is responsible, and what is the government going to do about it? It doesn't change the fact that this government did a review and found that everything was fine.

My question again is to the Premier. Where does the buck stop? If the minister isn't responsible, if the head of the B.C. Lottery Corporation isn't responsible, then who on earth in government is responsible for this scandal?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1400]

Hon. J. Les: I've already said that all of the recommendations made by the Ombudsman are going to be implemented, and we're going to conduct a review.

The Leader of the Opposition, of course, would like to paint a picture that the entire operation of the Lottery Corporation is suspect here. I would like to draw the opposition leader's attention to a report by the Auditor General of about 18 months ago on the casino operations of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. The then Auditor General made some very complimentary observations with respect to the operation of B.C. Lottery Corporation and casinos in this province.

G. Gentner: The Solicitor General suggests that the B.C. Lottery Corporation is suspect. Hon. Speaker, it's the ministry that is suspect. The minister wants to roll the dice on casinos. We'll definitely do that too, but we've got a lot of talk on that one as well.

It is clear from the investigation that British Columbians cannot have any faith in the government's ability to protect them from fraud. Can the Solicitor General tell us why British Columbians should trust him when he kept them in the dark about being ripped off?

Hon. J. Les: Well, it's always interesting to get a lecture from the NDP on gaming issues.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat.

Members. Members from both sides.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're not going to continue until we get quiet.

Hon. J. Les: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was about to remind members of the House that it was actually the New Democratic Party that ran a crooked bingo operation not that many years ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: As I've said, this is about the lottery ticket validation procedures of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. We appreciate the recommendations made by the Ombudsman, and they are going to be implemented as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: Hon. Speaker, the minister…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

G. Gentner: …is ultimately responsible for gaming policy and enforcement, the B.C. Lottery Corporation and consumer protection. He wears many hats. He's not only the enforcer, but he's the pusherman selling a bad brand on the streets. But what's worse is that his ministry knew this all along.

Will the minister do at least one thing? Will he remove himself as minister responsible for gaming policy and enforcement, will he remove himself as minister responsible for the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, or will he remove himself as minister responsible for consumer protection? Or will he do all of the above?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Please take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1405]

Hon. J. Les: I just want to point out that the volume of the question doesn't necessarily mean that it adds to the quality of the question.

Again, we are concerned about the findings of the Ombudsman. We take the recommendations seriously. They're going to be implemented, because we are concerned that we have a lottery system in British Columbia that consumers can depend on without question.

B. Ralston: My question, too, is for the Solicitor General.

[ Page 8306 ]

This morning at the news conference the Solicitor General said that B.C. Lotteries knew there were problems and that not enough attention was paid to fix the problems. But when asked what he was going to do to fix those problems, he golfed it over to the chair of the board of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. When he was asked what he was going to do, he said he had complete confidence in the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. He's already been exonerated.

My question to the Solicitor General is this. Does he not, according to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, accept responsibility and do the honourable thing and resign?

Hon. J. Les: As the member opposite will know, there is a board of directors in place that manages the affairs of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, and they will make whatever appropriate decisions that they feel are appropriate at the time.

In terms of government's response, we are going to ensure that all of the recommendations are implemented and that they're going to be implemented as quickly as possible. We're also going to, as I've already indicated, have a review by an independent auditor to suggest further improvements that might be made.

S. Simpson: The Ombudsman has told us that the Lottery Corporation knew that there was a huge problem. So presumably either Mr. Poleschuk told the Solicitor General about this and nobody did anything to solve that problem — nobody did a thing — or he didn't tell the Solicitor General, in which case he is responsible and should be held accountable for that. If he did tell the Solicitor General, then the Solicitor General is responsible for doing nothing to protect British Columbians.

Since the Solicitor General refuses to take responsibility and do the honourable thing here, I'll ask my question of the Premier. Will the Premier hold somebody responsible and accountable and ensure that somebody pays the price for this inaction and impact on British Columbians?

Hon. J. Les: Well, there's another issue that sets this apart from some previous events that have gone on in and around this place some years ago. There was no evidence of any backdated memos.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. J. Les: I've already said I'm taking full responsibility to ensure that all of the recommendations are going to be implemented as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1410]

S. Simpson: This government continues to refuse to accept responsibility and to be accountable. They've refused to accept responsibility and be accountable around dirty tricks. They've refused to accept responsibility and be accountable over 100-percent cost overruns on a convention centre, and now they're refusing to be accountable on this issue.

The public has reached its limit on this. Enough is enough. Will the Premier hold the minister accountable and responsible for his actions, or will he accept responsibility as the first minister?

Hon. J. Les: The Ombudsman's report is clear. There were deficiencies in terms of how the B.C. Lottery Corporation dealt with ticket validation. She has made 27 recommendations. We're going to accept and implement all of those recommendations.

We are going to have an outside auditor come in to do a complete review not only of the B.C. Lottery Corporation's procedures but also of its relationship with the gaming policy and enforcement branch.

British Columbians, I think, can be satisfied that we're doing everything in terms of making sure that we have a process of integrity around the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

PERFORMANCE BONUS FOR

B.C. LOTTERY CORPORATION CEO

R. Fleming: The Ombudsman has found serious deficiencies at B.C. Lottery Corporation around its performance — performance failures of the most serious kind.

Can the Solicitor General tell this House when he was first informed of those performance failures?

Hon. J. Les: I received an embargoed copy of the report yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The performance failures at B.C. Lottery Corporation are indeed serious. They will shake the confidence of B.C. consumers in this very institution.

Can the Solicitor General confirm this to the House? He hasn't on previous occasions when's he's been invited to. But can he tell this House if the CEO of B.C. Lottery Corporation received a performance bonus last year? Will he receive a performance bonus this year, and if so, how much?

Hon. J. Les: I suspect the member opposite would know that those are matters that are decided by the board of directors. I do not have direct input at all into whether or not the CEO receives a bonus. The member knows that, and his question is…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: …completely disingenuous.

J. Kwan: Does the minister believe that the CEO of the Lottery Corporation should receive his performance bonus this year?

[ Page 8307 ]

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure I heard the entire question, but….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: As I said to the previous member, the matter of whether bonuses are paid to the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corporation — or any other Crown corporation, for that matter — rests with the board of that organization. That is not a ministerial decision. The member opposite knows that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Based on the findings of the Ombudsman's report today, does the minister believe that the head of the B.C. Lottery Corporation should receive his performance bonus this year?

Hon. J. Les: I think that member, of all members in the House, should be painfully aware of what happens when there is political interference in these issues. She ought to know better. There is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your seat.

Continue.

Hon. J. Les: I repeat again. There is a board of directors in place which clearly has responsibilities for managing the corporation, and they will make decisions based on all of the information they have at their disposal.

[1415]

SOLICITOR GENERAL RESPONSE TO

B.C. LOTTERY CORPORATION ISSUES

D. Chudnovsky: A few minutes ago the minister told the House that he had received an embargoed copy of the report yesterday. My question to the minister is this. Was the minister aware of any of the deficiencies laid out in the report before he received the report yesterday?

Hon. J. Les: Back in December, I believe it was, an investigation was concluded by the gaming policy and enforcement branch. It raised a number of issues where improvements needed to be made. Those improvements were made or in some cases are still being made.

It was the Ombudsman's report released today that pointed out further deficiencies. We are obviously not pleased that those deficiencies still exist, but we are going to make sure that those issues are corrected and dealt with appropriately.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm not sure that I or anyone on this side or in the galleries, for that matter, could parse the answer fully, so I'm going to ask the question again. I want to understand exactly what it is that the minister is answering to the question.

The question is: was he aware before yesterday, when he saw an embargoed copy of the report, of any of the deficiencies laid out in that report? Did he know about any of them before he got the report?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I have the report here. This is the report that I received yesterday, and that's when I was made aware of these recommendations.

B. Simpson: Just so that we are crystal-clear and the people of British Columbia are crystal-clear, the Solicitor General mentioned a previous report. He stated he got a previous report, and I believe he said that he got it in December. That's what I heard, and it will be in Hansard .

What report is the Solicitor General talking about with that previous report? And if it is a report prior to this one, what did he do about it at that time?

Hon. J. Les: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's clear that the member opposite doesn't pay attention too much of the time. It was pretty clear last October when difficulties with lotteries emerged in the province of Ontario. I immediately came to the conclusion that we had better investigate our own lottery operations here in the province of British Columbia.

That investigation ensued. It was conducted by the gaming policy and enforcement branch, and they reported out in December. They felt there were a number of deficiencies. They reported out to me with those, and I immediately said that those deficiencies must be corrected.

Many of those corrections have been implemented. Some of them are still ongoing. That is the report that I referred to earlier. Obviously, the Ombudsman has found additional issues that need to be addressed.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

PERFORMANCE BONUS FOR

B.C. LOTTERY CORPORATION CEO

B. Simpson: First, I guess what we're saying is that in October the Solicitor General became aware, because of other jurisdictions, that we may have a problem. In December he was made aware that, in fact, we did have a problem and that there were deficiencies. Now we have the Ombudsman's report saying that there are further deficiencies.

My question to the Minister of Finance is back to the questions we were asking before. Will the CEO of

[ Page 8308 ]

the Gaming Commission get the bonus that he's going to get when all of these deficiencies are occurring in B.C. lotteries, which the Solicitor General is aware of and isn't addressing until he gets report after report after report in front of his desk?

Hon. J. Les: Well, I've already answered that question several times, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, the issue of whether or not the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corporation gets a bonus is a matter that is decided by its board of directors.

[1420]

IMPACT OF CANADA LINE CONSTRUCTION

ON CAMBIE STREET BUSINESSES

G. Robertson: Yesterday the Minister of Transportation said that the number of empty businesses along the Canada line hadn't changed by one since the construction began. Either the minister is truly clueless about what's really going on, or he's in total denial.

Maybe he and the Small Business Minister should come and pay a visit to Cambie Street. If they do, they will see a great number of empty storefronts in just two blocks where there were, a short time ago, very successful businesses — businesses like the Hugo Restaurant, Om Vegetarian Restaurant and Café Gloucester, which was one of the most successful Chinese restaurants in Vancouver for ten years.

How can this minister and the Small Business Minister blow off the small businesses along the Canada line and leave them in the dark on whether or not they will get compensation?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I'm going from a representative of the Cambie Village Business Association, and that representative wrote to the paper. I quoted from him yesterday, and the member could have paid attention. He said that in recent months ten new businesses — those are new, members; not old, not closed — have opened their doors and expressed their intention to locate, including a new pharmacy, several new restaurants and a Capers Community Market. Historically there has been an 8 percent to 12 percent annual turnover of businesses.

This member may not know, but sometimes businesses close, and sometimes they open. We don't pretend that when you have a major process like what's going on right now, it's not going to have an impact.

The issue is: is TransLink, as the developer of that project, doing everything they can to try and ameliorate the impact? I believe they're doing everything they can.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: The Minister of Transportation again is repeating what he said yesterday — that somehow the thing to understand is that with small businesses, there's a natural turnover.

There is nothing natural about what's happening along the Canada line. Businesses will continue to close down because of the construction, unless this government does something. Businesses like the Don Don Noodle Café, which just announced that after more than 21 years as a successful café on Cambie Street, it's closing its doors in two weeks.

Before the minister completely rejects the idea of fair compensation to these small businesses along the Canada line, will he agree to join me and the local merchants for lunch at the Don Don Noodle Café before it closes its doors in two weeks?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, it is amazing to me, Mr. Speaker — the lengths and the extent to which that member and that opposition will go to try and oppose a rapid transit project that's going to take 100,000 people a day out of their cars and into public transit. I am trying to understand the origins of this new-found expression of support and interest in small business from this member. I'm starting to wonder: could there be something else this member is thinking about?

I keep hearing these crazy rumours that he might want to run for mayor, and maybe he's just finding a way to bail out from that group — and I can understand that — and trying to establish himself. If he's so interested in having Vancouver provide tax relief, then maybe he ought to follow through on his plans and run for council and do it as the city of Vancouver.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[1425]

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

OUT-OF-PROVINCE MEDICAL EXPENSES

FOR CRESTON FAMILY

C. Evans: My question is for the Minister of Health. Young parents in my constituency, Dwayne and Melanie Folk, phoned me to say they have had twins, and mother and babies are doing well.

Unfortunately, it wasn't a local call. It wasn't even a call from Creston. Dwayne phoned me from Edmonton to tell me the story of this amazing odyssey. At the end of March, Melanie learns in Creston at the hospital that she's going to have twins. That's great. But they say: "We can't deliver twins here anymore. You have to go to Women's Hospital in Vancouver."

So Dwayne and Melanie, at their own expense, pack up their three-year-old, get in the car, drive to Vancouver and lease an apartment for three months. Melanie checks into Women's Hospital, and it's okay until April 1. The babies are almost born, and they say, "You know what? We don't have room at the inn anymore," and fly them in 90 minutes to Edmonton.

[ Page 8309 ]

Three months' lease on an apartment in Vancouver, and now they're in Edmonton. Dwayne and his daughter fly to follow them, and they're there now. The babies are born. The babies are now healthy. They're three weeks old. They've been ready to travel for two weeks, and they're still in Edmonton.

Now that my constituents are living in another province, when all they wanted to do was have a baby, my question to the Minister of Health is: will the Minister of Health agree to pay the out-of-province living costs of my constituents? And secondly, will the Minister of Health assist them to get back to British Columbia so they can raise these babies at home instead of being parked in Edmonton?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for raising the question. I'm delighted to hear…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …that the twins are doing well. I expect that the reason why the intensive care beds were required — level 2 or level 3 beds were required — for the twins is because there was some anticipation of potential problems with respect to them.

The member is a former Minister of Health. He knows well that there are occasions when babies and sometimes mothers require intensive care post-birth. I think the member would also know that there have never been, whether in the 1990s or any other time, level 2 or level 3 beds in the East Kootenay. It is necessary to go to Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary or….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: When babies require that level of care, we ensure that we get it. As the member knows, we have a reciprocal arrangement with the province of Alberta with respect to these matters. Sometimes when we have particularly heavy use of level 2 and level 3 beds in British Columbia, we make use of Alberta, and vice versa. Alberta babies come to British Columbia at times for that intensive care.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: If the member would provide me with the details in respect of the family, I would be glad to follow up in respect of the case.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege

D. Chudnovsky: I rise to reserve my right to bring forward a matter of privilege.

Petitions

N. Simons: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 2,722 residents of the Powell River area who are opposed to the proposed expansion of the Catalyst landfill site within the city limits of Powell River.

J. Horgan: I have the signatures of over 12,000 residents of the Cowichan Valley and other communities on Vancouver Island urging the preservation of the historic Kinsol Trestle.

C. Trevena: I have the honour to present a petition from more than a thousand child care workers who want to ensure that funding is returned to child care resource and referral programs, that operating funds are restored and that child care funding agreements are upheld.

[1430]

B. Simpson: I rise to present a petition. The petition is objecting to the conditions of the road in Likely, British Columbia, and asking the Minister of Transportation to undertake a review of the road conditions to restore safety to that road for the citizens of Likely.

G. Coons: I have a petition signed by numerous people from Saltspring Island who are concerned that access to our marine highway system is becoming unaffordable.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Just before the orders of the day, I'm asked by staff to alert all members that, as we wind through the week, by Thursday to please clean out your desks. There's a variety of…. You get to come back, but they would like you to…. [Laughter.] We are asked to clean out our desks prior to leaving on Thursday.

For orders of the day today, for the rest of the day I call Committee of Supply — in this chamber, continued debate on the estimates of the Office of the Premier, and in Committee A, continued debate on the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

[1435]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $13,771,000 (continued).

C. James: I'll get back to the staffing questions that we were asking before the break, but just one quick question of clarification. We were speaking before the lunch break with the Premier about the issue of KPMG

[ Page 8310 ]

and the investigation by Paul Taylor. I asked the Premier a question around royal assent on Bill 35 and whether the Premier would withhold royal assent on Bill 35 until KPMG reports on its investigation.

A ruling was made that the bill was before the House, and when we've asked for clarification, clarification was that third reading is finished. Therefore, it's not in front of the House. Therefore, it's a legitimate question to ask. So I just ask the question: will the Premier delay royal assent on Bill 35 until KPMG reports back?

The Chair: Member, the necessity of legislation or the details of legislation are not before the Committee of Supply.

C. James: This is an issue around the KPMG investigation and the investigation that is underway from the Premier's office by the deputy to the Premier. This is a question regarding that investigation, with respect, Madam Chair, and a question about withholding royal assent until that investigation is done.

My ruling was that this legislation was not before the House. Therefore, it was a legitimate question to ask.

The Chair: Member, that bill is still a bill. It's still legislation, and it's before the House. It hasn't received royal assent, but it's still before the House. Therefore, it's not a part of Committee of Supply.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, are you challenging the Chair?

J. Horgan: Just curious. I'm a curious individual.

[1440]

The Chair: Member, stand up to your position if you wish to speak.

Leader of the Opposition.

C. James: I'll move on, but it's clear that we have two different rulings that have come forward on this issue. So we'll decide that outside of here.

I'll go back to the staffing questions for the Premier that I was asking previous to our break. The question I was asking the Premier was around the code of conduct that employees have to sign and undertake when they become employees of government and political appointees. My question to the Premier was: when an allegation is made that an employee in the Premier's office may have violated one of those standards that we talked about earlier…. Can the Premier describe the steps that are taken if one of his staff violates that code of conduct?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think that should issues arise, they are reviewed as necessary by the supervisor that's involved, and remedies are taken to rectify any situations that exist.

But I would like to take a moment just to say that I think all staff — so-called political appointments and non-political appointments — in the public service take seriously the standards of conduct for public service employees. This is what, in fact, they all sign on to:

[1445]

"The government of British Columbia believes that the highest standards of conduct among public service employees are essential to maintain and enhance the public's trust and confidence in the public service. The requirement to comply with these standards of conduct is a condition of employment. Employees who fail to comply with these standards may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal."

Employees should contact their human resource consultant for advice and assistance in the

interpretation of the application of this policy directive.

I think it should be clear to all members of the Legislature that we're fortunate to be served by public service employees — OIC appointments that are under

section 12 and

section 15. We take these matters seriously, supervisors take them seriously, and actions are taken to remedy any situations that may arise.

However, I do think it's important to note that at the end of the day, individuals take responsibility for their actions, and individuals are expected to do that both through the oath of office and through the standards of conduct.

C. James: As the Premier outlined, staff are expected to follow this code of conduct. We've had some examples where that has not occurred. Just to use it as an illustrative example so the Premier then can perhaps give us more detail about what occurred…. Is it fair to say that the process that the Premier is talking about, where people may not follow the code of conduct, led to the firing of Prem Vinning, special adviser to the Premier who disguised his voice and phoned in on a radio show and pretended to be somebody else?

Can the Premier describe what happened in that case to use it as an illustration of what might happen if individuals did not in fact follow the code of conduct?

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Vinning was never a public servant. I understand this is a discussion about the public service. He was not a public servant, and he was never employed by the public service.

C. James: This is also a discussion about the staff in the Premier's office, including political appointments in the Premier's office. Perhaps, then, I can ask a question about the disciplinary measures that were taken with Basi and Virk immediately after the raids on the Legislature.

[1450]

Mr. Basi was fired; that's in the public record. Mr. Virk was suspended; that's in the public record. Some investigation and some measures were taken. My question to the Premier would then be: how did that occur? What were the steps that were taken when an RCMP investigation, in fact, was going on?

[ Page 8311 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't know how to be clearer with regard to this. I will not be discussing a matter that is currently before the courts, regardless of how the question is put. I don't believe it's appropriate to do that, and I will not be doing that.

C. James: Mr. Basi's firing did not occur when it was before the courts, nor did Mr. Virk's suspension occur when that was before the courts. Those were actions taken in the Premier's office. Staff spoke to the issue from the Premier's office.

My question for clarification from the Premier is: what kinds of actions were taken in the Premier's office to make a decision on those disciplinary measures?

The Chair: Member, the sub judice rule is designed to prevent prejudice in court, and the Chair is enforcing the sub judice rule.

Point of Order

M. Farnworth: On a point of order, Chair. The question was very clear. It didn't relate to a court case. It related to events preceding the termination of two individuals from the service of the provincial government. This is not before the courts. It is not subject to the sub judice rule.

The Chair: Member, that's up to the Chair to determine. The Chair is enforcing the sub judice rule.

Debate Continued

C. James: My question, then, is to the Premier. Does the Premier believe it's in keeping with the government's standard of conduct to counsel an employee to impersonate individuals and phone in and pretend to be someone else on open-line shows?

Hon. G. Campbell: I do think it's important to go back, and unfortunately, we have to remind the Leader of the Opposition of this. Even her own Attorney General critic has pointed out: "It's essential to the rule of law that the integrity of the judicial process not be interfered with. High-profile prosecutions have failed in the past because politicians felt compelled to make comments in public that were later deemed prejudicial."

The Leader of the Opposition can dress these questions up however she desires to. That's her right, obviously, but it is equally my right not to answer. I do not believe that's in the best interests of the court system. I do not believe it's in the best interests of an independent judiciary. And I do not believe it's in the best interests of a fair and a just resolution, which I know all members of the Legislature would seek.

So I do not intend to answer questions that are thinly veiled references to a court case which is currently ongoing.

C. James: Just to speak to this issue again, because I think it's important to note and important to have on record that these are questions that are not directly before the court. These are questions that in fact relate to two employees who were in the employ of this government.

The Premier is ultimately responsible for people in the employ of this government, and therefore I would expect that the Premier would be able to speak to disciplinary measures taken with employees in government, separate and apart from the court case.

These were two individuals who were disciplined by government. My question would be: what general process — if the Premier wants to talk about it in a general sense and not on the individuals — has the Premier taken to deal with disciplinary measures of individuals from his office or from government…?

[1455]

Point of Order

Hon. B. Penner: Point of order. It appears to me that the Leader of the Opposition is in fact arguing with the Chair. The Chair has made a ruling here. The sub judice rule applies. The member continues to refer to individuals who are currently before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and the Chair has expressed her opinion about whether or not it's appropriate. It's not appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to argue with the Chair.

The Chair: Members, the Chair has already ruled. The information the Chair is hearing came out of the court proceeding. The Chair is going to enforce the sub judice rule.

Members, please continue on another subject, another line of questioning.

Debate Continued

C. James: My question to the Premier is: how does he discipline employees in his office who do not follow a code of conduct?

Hon. G. Campbell: In the public service of British Columbia, public servants take an oath of office, and they also sign a standard of conduct.

[1500]

The

section 12 public servants are under the supervision of the Deputy Minister to the Premier in my office. The

section 15 OIC appointments are under the supervision of my chief of staff.

If there is a suggestion that there has been some inappropriate behaviour, that is reviewed by the appropriate supervisor. The discipline can range throughout the public service from a verbal reprimand to the termination of employment. Managers and supervisors are expected to actually examine those situations, and they take the appropriate action and make the appropriate determinations after considering the facts.

[ Page 8312 ]

C. James: Just to clarify: is the Premier saying that his office will always take appropriate action to investigate and discipline whenever an allegation is made about the wrongful conduct of his staff?

Hon. G. Campbell: It is not our practice to discipline on the basis of allegations. I think I've been pretty clear about that.

If there is a suggestion that there has been some inappropriate behaviour, then that suggestion is examined. It's reviewed. The facts are determined, and supervisors take appropriate steps to remedy the situation. As I mentioned, throughout the public service those steps can range all the way from a verbal reprimand to the termination of employment.

C. James: There appears to be a contradiction here from the Premier, since some staff have been disciplined based on what we presume are allegations or concerns, as the Premier identifies it. In this case he says that staff aren't dealt with due to allegations.

My question to the Premier would be: which is it? Some staff are treated one way; some staff are treated the other. Which is it?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, there's no question…. The same set of standards of conduct is applied across the public service. Supervisors take their actions and make their decisions on the basis of the facts.

[1505]

C. James: Hon. Chair, then I'll ask my question again with respect to your ruling and understanding that we need to steer clear of anything to do with the court case, as the Premier won't answer those questions. My question would be: what facts were used in the case of disciplining Basi-Virk that aren't being used to look at the allegations…?

The Chair: Member, that's clearly sub judice, and the Chair has ruled on that. You cannot do indirectly what you can't do directly. The Chair has already ruled on the sub judice rule.

C. James: In past cases where employees have been fired from the Premier's office, could the Premier, then, let me know what facts those were based on?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I think it would be inappropriate to comment on personnel matters in my estimates or anywhere else, but I do think it's important to note that to my knowledge and my recollection, there has not been a staff person that has been fired from the Premier's office since I've been the Premier.

C. James: It's pretty clear that once again we're not going to get answers from the Premier on these issues. I'd like to speak a little bit about the lobby registry and some of the work that needs to be done in that area.

With everything that we know about the lobby registry, all the events that have occurred over the last while and the concerns about Ken Dobell's perceived conflict of interest, would the Premier agree that it's time to look at the lobby registry act and tighten the rules governing lobbyists and potential conflicts?

The Chair: Members, I am reminding members again that we do not discuss legislation or the necessity for legislation in Committee of Supply. That is….

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, legislation is not proper subject for Committee of Supply. If members look at their rule books, they would know that by now.

M. Farnworth: That

section deals with specific legislation, not the need for policy issues, which is what estimates debate is about. It has been the practice of this chamber, both in the little chamber and in this chamber, during ministerial estimates — and that includes the Premier — to engage in policy discussions that may require legislation.

There is precedent after precedent after precedent on those particular issues in this House. I would suggest the Chair go back and review the Hansard debates to see examples of this on numerous occasions. The questions are not out of order.

The Chair: I remind the member to go back and read page 138 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , third edition. I will read for the member to refresh his memory: "Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, nor the conduct of certain high public servants, nor the decision of a judicial court." May 17 edition, page 766, reference.

[1510]

C. James: Then perhaps I can speak about specifics, events where MLAs, where government and opposition caucus are invited to attend when the House is sitting, for example — events where MLAs and ministers might go and have a snack, a glass of wine and meet with organizations to learn about their interests and concerns. Sometimes staff attend those events as well.

My question would be to the Premier. Has the Premier's staff ever attended those events that are hosted by lobbyists and their clients?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't speak for specifics, but I can tell you that I believe, at least in an open society, that we encourage members of the Legislature and members of the public service to interact with citizens and hear what concerns they may have, what suggestions they may have for improving the province. At all times members of the public service and members of the Legislature are guided by their oath of office and the standards of conduct which we've been discussing.

C. James: Then continuing on, have staff from the Premier's office, the Premier's staff, ever attended

[ Page 8313 ]

sporting events, dinners, received tickets? Does the Premier have a policy for his staff on receiving any of those tickets, attending any of those events and receiving those benefits?

[1515]

Hon. G. Campbell: I'd refer the member to the Public Service Agency website which covers off the standards of conduct for public service employees. It was revised in 2003. It points out that public servants, in fact, meet with stakeholders every day. It's one of the things that we ask them to do as we pursue our government initiatives, and I'm sure that it's something the opposition asks them to do as they pursue opposition initiatives.

It's important to note that it is all right for hospitality between persons doing business together to take place. Tokens can be exchanged as part of protocol. Normal presentation of gifts to persons participating in public functions or normal exchange of gifts between friends is all right under the standard of conduct. Those are the standards that we've set in British Columbia. Those are the standards that we pursue.

C. James: The Premier's staff follow the same code of conduct, and there aren't separate guidelines for the Premier's staff, if I've heard correctly.

If I could move on to the federal lobbyist act and speak a little bit about the federal system. In the federal lobbyist act Pilothouse lobbyists who had admitted to bribery would have been in violation of a code of ethics, according to the federal lobbyist registry, and they would have been prevented from in fact doing further lobbying.

[1520]

Here in B.C., though, they were able to keep up with their activities even if they admitted to wrongdoing. My question to the Premier is: does he believe that a code of ethics should be in place that would at least match the federal registry act?

Hon. G. Campbell: I've said a number of times that there is the same set of standards of conduct for everyone across the public service, from the Premier's office through the ministries, etc. I think it's important to note that.

In terms of the question that the member asks, as she may know, the lobbyist legislation that was brought in 2001 was the first time that lobbyist legislation had been in place. The Attorney General has been working for some time with regard to that and will continue to.

The opposition has been asked for their recommendations on what they would add to that. Should they want to pursue that, they should do that through the Attorney General.

C. James: My question was around the federal code of ethics, but apparently the Premier is permitted to speak to the current legislation and current lobbying registry act, as he just did. Therefore, I'm presuming, Madam Chair, that the ruling is that it is permitted for both of us to engage in that dialogue?

[1525]

The Chair: The ruling is that neither side is, but if one side opens — I believe the Leader of the Opposition asked the question — the other side did not necessarily have to answer it.

Point of Order

M. Farnworth: On a point of order, hon. Chair, I would like to ask for a clarification. The Chair has ruled that the discussion of provincial legislation was not permissible, so the Premier, in response to a question in which provincial legislation was not even mentioned, is allowed to discuss that. Then the Chair indicates that it's not okay, or that if it's been opened up by one side, it's okay, then, for both parties to discuss the particular issue.

Could the Chair please make up its mind and recognize, then, that the Leader of the Opposition's questions are entirely in order.

The Chair: I'm going to read the ruling for both sides. If both sides would give the Chair a moment to permit me to read those to both sides, they would recognize what the ruling is.

Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, and the Chair will be enforcing that.

A. Dix: As the Chair will know, the reference that's based on is based on an old edition of Erskine May. There's a new edition of Erskine May on this issue — on the voting of estimates, on the relevance of debate in estimates — which reads, and I'm speaking to the point of order, that the normal rules of debate apply to the consideration of estimates. "In recommending the estimates for debate, the liaison committee normally recommends that an estimate be considered so far as it relates to a particular subject, often the subject of a select committee inquiry. That report from the liaison committee, when it is agreed to by the House, determines the scope of debate on the motion."

Hon. Chair, in fact the new version of Erskine May addresses this issue differently. I just make this point, that the effort to avoid answering questions with respect to issues around lobbyists and around lobbying legislation is not, I think, a justification for denying that these questions be asked of the Premier in the Legislature of British Columbia. In fact, the new edition of Erskine May has come out more recently than MacMinn, which has guided some of our procedures in this House and clearly should be a referral in MacMinn in terms of the essence.

So I ask that the questions that are being asked by the Leader of the Opposition — relevant questions, questions that the Premier has a responsibility to this House to answer — be allowed to be asked.

Hon. B. Penner: Hon. Chair, the member should be aware that in this House, MacMinn, third edition, is the preferred resource that we go to for direction.

[ Page 8314 ]

The Chair has made a ruling. On this side of the House we respect the rulings of the Chair. I would suggest that the member conduct himself appropriately through you, Madam Chair, because it is inappropriate to challenge a ruling of the Chair.

The Chair: Members, the Chair would like the members to know that I am quoting from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , third edition, which is the current edition of MacMinn's rules.

The Chair also wishes the members to be advised that the Chair is not stopping discussion on the issue of lobbyists. The Chair is not going to recognize the particulars of questions on legislation. I would like both sides to be aware of that.

Debate Continued

C. James: Then my question, again, to the Premier is: does the Premier believe that a code of ethics, as they have with the federal legislation — Lobbyists Registration Act — should be in place here in our province?

[1530]

D. Chudnovsky: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Chudnovsky: In the gallery above us are a number of students from McBride Elementary School in Vancouver-Kensington. I had a chance to visit with them outside on the steps a few minutes ago. They are charming, intelligent and beautiful, and of course, they live in the best constituency in the province. I'd like to ask members to welcome our friends from McBride Elementary School.

Debate Continued

Hon. G. Campbell: The member is asking me about issues around federal frameworks that I'm not aware of. It's difficult for me to respond to those. I'm not sure how it has to do with the administrative action of the department in these estimates. I'm not aware of the federal policy framework that is in place, and it would be difficult for me to respond.

C. James: I would hope that the Premier would take some time to review the federal act and the federal code. It's certainly critical for some of his staff in his office to pay attention to, so I would hope that the Premier will take some time to do that.

[1535]

I'd like to move on and talk a little bit about accountability and conflict of interest. My first question to the Premier would be: does the Premier believe in cabinet accountability, and how would he define that?

[J. Nuraney in the chair.]

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, I think that all members of cabinet, as all members of the Legislature, are accountable. Of course, we have the ultimate accountability to the public in terms of our actions, our commitments to the public, what we do and how we carry those out in terms of the standards that we set as we pursue our public goals on behalf of the public. I believe those same standards are there for the opposition to pursue.

I also believe that it's important for us to recognize that for all the issues that we're dealing with, we will all be ultimately accountable in May 2009. Certainly, the opposition understands the importance of public accountability, and they experienced that in a pretty significant way.

When we see cabinets that play games with budgets…. We've been recognized for the openness and accountability that we have in terms of our budgeting process in this government. We've been recognized across the country for the initiatives that we've undertaken to make sure that we do carry out an open and transparent government, and we will be held accountable to that. Just as we're held accountable, so will the opposition be held accountable for their actions.

C. James: I find it unbelievable that the Premier could even choke out the words "openness and accountability" when we look at the example of these estimates alone — never mind the last number of months of this government stonewalling, refusing to answer questions, hiding behind court cases, hiding behind anything they can look at, anything they can choose to avoid answering questions. Estimates has just been one more example of that.

[1540]

My question is a direct question to the Premier. He shouldn't have to take time to talk to others. This is just for him to make a decision on, so it should be a fairly fast response. My question to the Premier is: does he believe that the Premier holds the ultimate accountability around ensuring there's accountability in cabinet? Is he ultimately responsible for that accountability in cabinet?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, I am the president of the executive council. I do select members of cabinet. Like every other MLA, I am ultimately accountable for my actions to the members of the public.

C. James: Perhaps I can give an example to the Premier to talk a little bit about on accountability that the Premier says is important and that he is the ultimate authority. On December 14 the Solicitor General told the Times Colonist in a letter that all Lottery Corporation systems were subjected to rigorous testing, and no issues had surfaced.

However, today the Solicitor General said he knew of deficiencies as a result of the December report. It appears that the Solicitor General has misled the public. My question would be to the Premier. Does this meet his test of accountability?

Hon. G. Campbell: First let me say that I have not had the opportunity to review all of the information

[ Page 8315 ]

that has been made public today by the Ombudsman. Let me also say that in the fall of 2006 some issues arose that have actually been dealt with across the country with regard to the sale of lottery tickets and winnings.

The Solicitor General did a review and made recommendations on the basis of that review, as was pointed out during question period. The Ombudsman subsequently decided that there was more work that she felt could be done. She prepared a comprehensive report and made 27 recommendations. Those recommendations have been embraced by the Solicitor General as well as the board of the Lottery Corporation. In the words of the Ombudsman, there's a problem, and we should fix it. That's exactly what we're doing.

[1545]

C. James: I recognize the Premier is going to take some time to read the full report, but the report in

summary is very clear that there are huge deficiencies in the system.

My question would be to the Premier. Does he believe someone should be accountable for this mess in the Lottery Corporation?

Hon. G. Campbell: I really think it's appropriate to read the report, which I have not had the opportunity to do today. I'm amazed at the opposition leader's speedreading techniques that she has. I think it's important that we get the information.

There are 27 recommendations which will be pursued. The Solicitor General will be working with the board of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, who've agreed that they will be implementing those 27 recommendations. The B.C. Lottery Corporation, I'm sure, will have an action plan that they will put in place.

This government believes it's important to maintain the independence of the board of B.C. Lottery Corporation within the context of the policy the government has set, so we will pursue those 27 recommendations, as the Ombudsman suggested.

I think it's a comprehensive report. It highlights some significant challenges that must be met. It points out, as I understand it, 27 actions that will be taken, and as the Solicitor General has said, those actions and each of those recommendations will be followed and implemented in the appropriate way.

The Chair: Member, before we proceed further, if I may just encourage the member that I totally understand the exploratory arena of your questioning, but it would be much more meaningful if you went back to the estimates debate, I would think.

C. James: Thank you, hon. Chair. This is directly related to the Premier's accountability, to the Premier's accountability for all cabinet ministers and to the Premier's accountability for government and the decisions that the government takes.

I can go back and quote, if the Premier needs it, some quotes from him directly that talk about the fact that the Premier's office is ultimately responsible for everything that goes on. Therefore, these questions are directly related to estimates, to the Premier's office and to the Premier's conduct himself.

My question is to the Premier. He says he hasn't read the report. It's clear that his Solicitor General has read the report. The Premier stated that. The Premier stated that the recommendations would be implemented, so obviously there's some review that has gone on of this report. Obviously, the government believes that these recommendations are important enough to act on. They obviously recognize there was some challenge.

My question again to the Premier would be: does he not believe that someone has to be ultimately responsible for the challenges that are identified and the recommendations that then follow?

[1550]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, I haven't had the opportunity to read the report. I know that the Solicitor General has said that he did have the opportunity to get it yesterday.

There were 27 recommendations made by the Ombudsman. The Solicitor General has said that all of those 27 recommendations will be carried out. In fact, he has told this House today that he intends to have an independent audit of both the Lottery Corporation and the gaming enforcement branch which will go even deeper, I would expect, than the Ombudsman was able to do. The appropriate actions will be taken as a result of that report.

I do think it's important to get the facts straight and to understand those facts. To be clear about that, the board of the B.C. Lottery Corporation is responsible for carrying out the policies that the government has set. They will report back to the Solicitor General, and appropriate actions will be taken.

C. James: That's exactly what I'm trying to do, in fact — get the facts straight. It's becoming more and more difficult because of the statements that have been made by the Solicitor General. Again, with the Premier saying that he was ultimately accountable for the actions of government and the actions of cabinet ministers, I'd like to ask the Premier about the contradiction between his minister's statements.

Today in the House, as the Premier said, we heard from the Solicitor General. He stated: "That investigation ensued. It was conducted by the gaming policy and enforcement branch, and they reported out in December. They felt there were a number of deficiencies. They reported out to me with those, and I…said that those deficiencies must be corrected." That was the Solicitor General today in the House stating that he heard about those concerns in December and that he stated that those had to be fixed.

I quote from the minister — the Solicitor General, the same one — in December in the Times Colonist : "'I asked…to confirm the integrity of the technology systems used for…the lottery retail network' and was told everything was fine."

[ Page 8316 ]

To the Premier, there appears to be a contradiction. There certainly is confusion on the public's behalf. We have the Solicitor General stating that everything was fine in December. He stated today in this House that in fact he knew things were not fine in December. Because the Premier has the ultimate accountability around all of these cabinet ministers, will the Premier hold the Solicitor General accountable for appearing to mislead the public?

The Chair: Member, point of order.

Hon. B. Penner: This point has already been raised. The Premier has already given an answer saying that he wants to take time to read the report. I suggest that this questioning is repetitious.

The Chair: Member, point of order.

M. Farnworth: Yes, thank you, hon. Chair. The member has been around this House long enough to know that repetitious is a lot more than one or two times asking a question. If he doesn't recognize that, he really should go back and read the rule book.

[1555]

The Chair: Thank you for your observations, Member. The Chair is fully aware of his duties and will consider the proceedings.

Hon. G. Campbell: No, I honestly can't speak for what the minister may or may not have said and what was reported in the Times Colonist.

I can say this. As the Solicitor General pointed out today in this House, in the fall of 2006 there were concerns raised about the lottery situation in Ontario. As a result of those and other situations that evidently exist across the country, the Solicitor General asked the gaming enforcement branch to do a review.

That review came through in December and highlighted some specific concerns. The Solicitor General asked for actions to be taken with regard to those specific concerns. My understanding — again, from hearing from the Solicitor General today in the House — is that some of those actions are complete and some of those actions are in process at this point.

Subsequent to that the Ombudsman felt that she should have a look at the situation. She did, throughout that. She has now submitted a report. It was submitted at ten o'clock this morning. I have not had an opportunity to read that report, but I have heard from the Solicitor General, as has the opposition, that all 27 recommendations made by the Ombudsman will be put in place.

Evidently, B.C. Lottery today said specifically that they will be putting in place the 27 recommendations from the Ombudsman. They also said that this will be the first province in Canada to ban retailers from purchasing or checking products at their own establishments.

Further, the Solicitor General said that there would be an independent review, an audit that would be taking place, of the B.C. Lotteries Corporation and the gaming enforcement branch. Obviously, if they're necessary, actions will be taking place as a result of that review. Those are the steps that the Solicitor General has taken, and I agree with those steps.

C. James: Then to speak directly to the Premier's accountability, since it appears that he won't hold the Lottery Corporation accountable and he won't hold the minister accountable, does the Premier feel accountable for what's gone on in the Lottery Corporation?

[1600]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I've said before, I think we are all accountable for our activities in government. I'm certainly accountable as the Premier, as the Leader of the Opposition is accountable as the Leader of the Opposition.

I think what's important is that if a problem is identified, steps are taken to rectify it. A problem was identified in October with regard to the lottery activities that were taking place in Ontario. Steps were taken by the Solicitor General to have the gaming enforcement branch review our current systems. He did do that.

They found that there were some steps that had to be taken to improve that. There were recommendations that were made. Those recommendations are now in the midst of either being completed or moving towards conclusion.

Subsequent to that review, the Ombudsman felt it was important that she carry out a report. She has now submitted that report as of this morning. I have not yet had an opportunity to read that report. I haven't had an opportunity to hear back from the board of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

I think it's appropriate for us to have said and for the Solicitor General to have been very clear that the 27 recommendations made by the Ombudsman will be followed through. I also think it's appropriate that the Solicitor General has said that there will be an independent audit done of both the gaming enforcement branch and the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

I also think it's important that the board of B.C. Lottery be directed, as the minister has, to come back with an action plan to put those activities in place. Subsequent to the audit which will be implemented, if there are further recommendations, we will pursue those recommendations as well.

C. James: We've certainly heard words, reports, actions, talk from this Premier. No one, in the end, is being held accountable, and it's very disappointing. This was an opportunity for the Premier to be accountable to British Columbians, to hold someone accountable to British Columbians for this mess. It appears that he is not the least bit interested in doing that, so I think that's very disappointing.

Moving on to another accountability area, the issue of conflict of interest. If we take a look at the last few years, we have senior government officials who have left office and who have taken positions with the private sector that have created very serious perceptions of conflict of interest.

[ Page 8317 ]

Ken Dobell is one example of that. Ken Dobell, as we know, created a guideline before he left office that said senior officials should wait one full year before they take contracts that could put them in a potential conflict. That was Mr. Dobell's own rule that he created, and as we know, Mr. Dobell only waited ten months.

I would like to ask the Premier: why did Mr. Dobell not follow his own guidelines, and why did the Premier's office not choose to enforce them?

[1605]

Hon. G. Campbell: Senior management in B.C.'s public service do have some requirements with regard to what and how they can work subsequent to leaving the public service. After leaving the public service, obviously dealings with outside entities have to have some caveats or some containment on them. It lasts for a year following the leaving of the public service.

In fact, Mr. Dobell's contract, which was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, enhanced the employment restrictions that Mr. Dobell could face. Any contract had to be approved by the Deputy Minister to the Premier prior to that contract being able to be entered into.

In the spring of 2006, prior to the one-year anniversary with regard to Mr. Dobell, he did check with my deputy minister as to whether or not he could take on the tasks the city had asked him to take on with regard to the cultural precincts. Since it was an initiative where the province was working directly with the city and looking at opportunities there for us to work together, it was agreed that he could take on that contract.

C. James: Can the Premier tell this House how many other senior officials had the one-year rule waived?

[1610]

Hon. G. Campbell: There are two documented cases of former deputy ministers that had the time period waived. One was Vince Collins, a former deputy minister for the PSA, and the other was Don Wright, a former Deputy Minister of Forests. In both cases, due to lack of their past work and future prospects, the Deputy Minister to the Premier of the day concluded that there was no harm to government if they took on private employment under strict conditions.

For Mr. Collins it was agreed that he would not be allowed to contract back to the PSA or B.C. Leadership for at least six months after departing from his tasks.

For Mr. Wright, as he was going to continue to work on the government's behalf as a contractor after leaving the deputy minister's position, he was restricted from taking any private sector contracts that would be negotiating with the Ministry of Forests, and he would have to seek approval before having any contracts with any forestry-related companies.

C. James: Just so I can determine when a year is not a year, because it appears a year isn't a year…. Even though it is written down as a year requirement, it appears there are people who don't have to follow that year.

Just a couple of other names for the Premier beyond the names that he has raised. Mike Marasco, a former vice-president of Partnerships B.C., only waited six months. He resigned from Partnerships B.C. and took a position with the Plenary Group that actually bids on Partnerships B.C. contracts. So my question to the Premier is: why was that one-year rule waived?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it is important to note that we have in place post-employment restrictions for senior management in the B.C. public service. Those post-employment restrictions for senior management in the B.C. public service specifically have a component that provides for the reduction of one-year limitations. It's for senior management in the B.C. public service and not, as the Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest, for some.

Let me read to the Chair the reduction of the one-year limitation component of post-employment restrictions for senior management in the B.C. public service:

"The Deputy Minister of the B.C. Public Service Agency may reduce the one-year restriction, upon application, after considering the following: the circumstances under which your employment ended, your general employment prospects, the significance to the government of information you possess by virtue of your position with the government, the desirability of a rapid transfer of your skills to an employer other than the government, the degree to which the new employer might gain unfair commercial advantage by hiring you, the authority and influence you possessed while employed by the government, and the disposition of other cases."

[1615]

Mr. Marasco, who was referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, was not in a senior management position in the B.C. public service. He did work for Partnerships B.C., so Partnerships B.C. put in place a number of protections, including signing a conflict-of-interest adjudicator, who demanded not only a six-month reprieve from working with Partnerships B.C. but also disallowed Mr. Marasco from working on health care–related projects, which was his area of involvement when he worked for Partnerships B.C. He was also barred from working in the Vancouver office for that six months.

C. James: I think the Premier has pointed out the contradiction himself — six months, not a year. Does the Premier not believe that the standard should be consistent across the board, whether we're talking about Partnerships B.C. or whether we're in fact talking about Richard Turner, with the Lottery Corporation, who is another example of someone who left and started a job again seven months later?

My question to the Premier then would be: does he not believe that it would make sense to have consistent rules applied — the one-year rule applied not with a list of long exceptions, as the Premier outlined, but a one-year rule in place across government and the corporations?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it is important to note that the reason the post-employment restrictions for

[ Page 8318 ]

senior management in the public service were put in place was to protect the public interest.

Obviously, there is not an intent to be unfairly restrictive. We want people to work in the public service in British Columbia, to bring their talents to it. There may be people that decide they want to go back out and work in the private sector, and we should not discourage that. We should try and ensure that the public interest is protected, and that's what I believe takes place here.

[1620]

The fact of the matter is that under the previous government there were no standards. Now there are standards that are in place. Crown corporations are expected to be fully accountable for the management of their Crown corporations and for their management decisions. If issues arise, the boards will address them, and the minister and the government will ensure that the public interest is remembered and is kept in mind.

I think we saw that with regard to how Partnerships B.C. dealt with Mr. Marasco. I also think that in terms of the other gentleman that was just mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, he was not an employee. If you're not an employee, it's hard to provide the same kinds of rules.

However, I should say this. He was a chair prior to the ethical standards being developed by the Board Resourcing and Development Office and before they were put in place. In the spirit of those standards, however, he did receive legal advice stating that there would be no conflict in his holding another directorship. It's a directorship, I understand, that is outside of the province and in fact doesn't do very much work in Canada, let alone in British Columbia.

We want to encourage people to be involved in public life in British Columbia, in the public service through boards, through commissions. I think that we should recognize, when they do that, that obviously there is public interest involved. There are requirements that must be met now. There are ethical standards that must be met. We have an obligation to protect the public interest, and that's what the standards that were brought in subsequent to this government being elected do. They protect the public interest.

C. James: Perhaps the Premier also needs to take into account the conflict of interest, which is the important piece in all of this that seems to be missing. He might want to take some time to talk to his own Minister of Finance, who in fact set her own standard for her ministerial assistant, who left his post on April 30. She actually sent him a letter stating that neither she nor her office would have any contact with him for one year.

Apparently, she set a standard, so I think the Premier might want to take a moment to take a look at what his ministers are doing and perhaps find a consistent standard across government that actually would be applied and not waived.

I would like to go back now to the staff in the Premier's office and speak about special adviser Ken Dobell — talk a little bit about his contract and a little bit about the direction taken in the office.

Just a point of clarification first. In the letter following Mr. Dobell signing his contract as a special adviser, the Premier made the nature of that relationship very clear, saying Mr. Dobell "will report to me but consult regularly with the deputy to the Premier."

As we know, Mr. Dobell also reports to Ms. McDonald. Ms. McDonald is responsible — and I want it make sure I've got this correct — for monitoring performance, receiving reports. She is a signatory to the contract. She monitors contract compliance for Mr. Dobell. Is that all correct?

[1625]

Hon. G. Campbell: On August 8, 2005, I sent a letter to Mr. Dobell. I believe the Leader of the Opposition has that letter. We've canvassed this in both the 2005 and the 2006 estimates. I would refer her to page 2 of that, which points out that Mr. Dobell will report to me but will consult regularly with the Deputy Minister to the Premier and cabinet secretary "to ensure effective coordination with related government initiatives. Any work you may take on for any other party must be free of conflict and approved by the deputy to the Premier and the cabinet secretary."

I think it's important to note that the contractual obligations, obviously, will be monitored by the deputy minister, and the Deputy Minister to the Premier signed the contract with Mr. Dobell.

C. James: One

section of that contract that the Premier is referring to,

section 15, states very clearly that Mr. Dobell must comply with all applicable laws.

My question to the Premier is: at the time the contract was signed, did Ms. McDonald seek any legal advice with regard to the duties that have been outlined for Mr. Dobell and what applicable laws would apply?

Hon. G. Campbell: During the preparation of the contract, it was reviewed in its entirety by the legal services branch.

C. James: Was there any advice received, legal or otherwise, by Ms. McDonald that told her that Mr. Dobell was required to register with the federal registry act?

[1630]

Hon. G. Campbell: The onus of compliance with the law obviously rests with the contractor. In this particular case, I can't speak to whether it was required for him to sign on to the federal lobbyist registration or not. But that onus was clearly with him.

C. James: Just so I can sum up and be clear, Ms. McDonald signed the contract. Under the contract, Mr. Dobell reports to Ms. McDonald. She's responsible for ensuring that he fulfils any of his contractual obligations. But she sought no advice in taking a look at what those contractual obligations were with respect to complying with federal laws. Is that correct?

[ Page 8319 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me remind the Leader of the Opposition that in the preparation of the contract, subject to the review of the legal services branch…. In the contract, which is available for the Leader of the Opposition — I believe she's had it for a number of months now — it is clear that it is a requirement of Mr. Dobell that he must comply with all applicable laws.

That's clearly in the contract and is clearly stated. There are no questions about where the onus of that responsibility lies. It lies with Mr. Dobell.

C. James: Just to continue, when was Ms. McDonald aware that Mr. Dobell had not complied with the federal Lobbyists Registration Act?

Hon. G. Campbell: My deputy minister is not aware that there is a legal requirement for Mr. Dobell to register with the federal lobbyists registry. However, if there is a requirement and if it's found that there is a requirement, that would be Mr. Dobell's responsibility to fulfil that requirement.

[1635]

C. James: I find it incredible that in all the discussion around the registration time for Mr. Dobell in the provincial registry act, the deputy would be unaware of the federal registry act. I find that unbelievable. I don't think anyone would believe a statement like that when you take a look at all the public discussion that's occurred around both the provincial lobby registry act and the federal lobby registry act.

In fact, there's a requirement in the federal registry act to do with conflict of interest. Ms. McDonald did sign a letter around conflict of interest for Mr. Dobell, so my question would be: did Ms. McDonald not understand that that letter was part of the requirement for the federal lobby registry act?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I want to say again that I have great confidence in the staff that we have, our public sector staff, and the leadership that we have in British Columbia. What I said, and what the Leader of the Opposition has decided to rephrase, is that the Deputy Minister to the Premier is not aware that there is a determined legal requirement for Mr. Dobell to have registered under the federal conflict requirements.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

In fact, I believe there's a member of her caucus who has lodged a complaint with the federal registrar. There has been no determination that we are aware of at this point, and if the Leader of the Opposition believes that because people are discussing it that there is a determination, that's actually not the case. There has been no determination.

There was a report by Mr. Loukidelis on Monday that pointed out quite clearly that Mr. Dobell had been very open, he had been transparent, and he'd registered late for the B.C. lobbyists registry. That will be dealt with, as we've said, as is deemed appropriate by the appropriate authorities. But the fact of the matter is that there has been no determination made with regard to a legal requirement for Mr. Dobell.

If there was a determination that was made that there was some requirement that Mr. Dobell should have fulfilled, that would have clearly been his responsibility, and the onus of fulfilling that responsibility rests with Mr. Dobell under the contract.

C. James: I just have to say again that I certainly would expect that the deputy to the Premier would be aware of lobbyist registration acts, whether they are provincial or federal, and the importance of following through on those with any lobbyists, special advisers, contract consultants — whatever you want to call them — who were in the Premier's office.

[1640]

I certainly would expect that that would be part of the duties of the deputy to the Premier — not to put the Premier's office in jeopardy of having someone violate

an act and therefore the Premier's office having been involved in that. As I said, I still continue to find that unbelievable.

I want to talk a little bit about the multiple hats worn by Mr. Dobell — continuing on with the special adviser in the Premier's office. We've talked about conflict of interest, and I'll come back to conflict of interest in a little bit.

I also want to talk about workload and ask the Premier: has the Premier ever had any qualms about all the duties Mr. Dobell was performing and the multiple roles that he was performing on a part-time basis?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, the Leader of the Opposition asked if I had any concerns about the workload that Mr. Dobell had taken on. Mr. Dobell is a longstanding public servant. And frankly, I've found that the line of questioning the Leader of the Opposition has taken with regard to not just Mr. Dobell but other public servants during these estimates is simply unacceptable to people in the public service, I'm sure. It is to me.

I'll obviously listen to the questions and take them, but I have never had any concerns about Mr. Dobell's capacity. Mr. Dobell has been honoured across this country for his work in the public service. Only this new opposition feels that it's appropriate to attack people in the public service.

If there are issues for us to deal with, then we should deal with them. We have dealt with Mr. Dobell's contract on two separate occasions during Premier's estimates. As we've done that, it has always been clear what Mr. Dobell's obligations were. He's recognized for his work in the province of British Columbia, but he is also recognized for his work across the country.

It was pointed out quite clearly during estimates previously that Mr. Dobell had taken on a number of responsibilities. Even in the report that was done and released on Monday by Mr. Loukidelis, it was pointed out by Mr. Loukidelis that transparency to Mr. Dobell

[ Page 8320 ]

took precedence — as it should — to perceived technicalities around the requirements of the Lobbyists Registration Act.

It is very important, I think, to recognize the contributions he has made in a whole array of activities — from activities with regard to the new RAV line, with TransLink, with the city of Vancouver, with the Pacific gateway, as a federal government liaison. He has helped both as a Deputy Minister to the Premier and as a special adviser to the Premier in a number of areas. He is recognized in the forest industry for the exceptional work he did on behalf of all of them and all of us in the softwood lumber negotiations.

[1645]

I think we have to recognize that the energy, expertise, intelligence and integrity that Mr. Dobell brings to his job is something that we should be celebrating after 40 years of public service in this province, not attacking it as the Leader of the Opposition seems to be doing.

C. James: The only person playing politics with the civil service here is the Premier. No one else is playing politics other than the Premier. He likes to use those words to be able to avoid answering questions. Again, as he did yesterday…. I'm sorry it makes him uncomfortable to have to sit there and listen to my questions, but he's going to have to do that because that's what estimates is all about.

My question to the Premier is: is he satisfied with the job that Mr. Dobell has done as chair of the convention centre expansion?

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Dobell, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, had a number of tasks. One was to sit as the chair of the board of the Vancouver convention centre. He is no longer the chair. He now sits on the board.

I think that his service to the public generally has been exemplary. There is no question that the convention centre construction project has created some significant challenges both in terms of its complexity and the construction climate that it was carried out in. Having said that, I think it's important to note that it's going to generate significant and ongoing substantial benefits to the people of British Columbia.

I know that's what Mr. Dobell was most concerned about. I think British Columbians will be very pleased to see the kind of results that we get from the investment in what has been called a real job engine for British Columbia. Not only is the design something that has been recognized, but the environmental benefits are something that have been recognized. The economic benefits, the job creation benefits have all been recognized.

There have been significant cost escalations, particularly in materials that were required for the building of the convention centre. Obviously, Mr. Dobell couldn't control those cost escalations, but I am very pleased to say that the convention centre is going to be a huge asset for the people of British Columbia in the long term.

C. James: I'd just like to read a quote to the Premier: "There is no one in the private sector who would possibly maintain their job when one of their projects had doubled in price and is two years overdue." Does the Premier recall that statement he made when he was in opposition, and does he agree with that statement?

[1650]

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't recall the specifics of that quotation. I do certainly recall making comments like that with regard to the fast ferries.

Having said that, hon. Chair, I want to be very clear about this. The convention centre itself is going to generate literally hundreds of millions of dollars of economic benefits. No one can be happy about the fact that it had some significant engineering challenges and that we've watched substantial price increases and cost escalations taking place with regard to the steel and a lot of the materials that are going to be used. I can tell you that already the convention centre is outperforming its initial pro formas. We are looking at hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands and thousands of jobs that will be directly connected.

I think it's fair to say that no one could have anticipated the kind of skill shortages we have in the province right now. The economy is working better than it's ever worked in the history of the province. That's good news for people who want work, who want jobs and who are watching as their incomes go up.

The overall benefits from the convention centre are substantial. It will increase the number of delegates. There have been a number of reports in the press about the amount of interest that has been generated in 2006. A study was done that suggested there would be an additional $240 million a year brought into the provincial economy. It's not just an economy in the lower mainland; it's an economy across the province. Almost 60 percent of all people that attend conventions in the lower mainland actually go to other parts of the province, either on their way to the convention or leaving the convention.

There are 27 events that would not be here were we not carrying out this project. I think that this is a project that Vancouverites, British Columbians and in fact people who are interested in our position on the Pacific will be very proud of in the future.

C. James: As the Premier himself points out, Mr. Dobell has overseen the convention centre and has overseen the convention centre jump in costs from $495 million to a range of $800 million. We still don't know what that range looks like, since we don't have the number. It's very clear that the costs have doubled, and we still continue to see Mr. Dobell maintain his job on the board and his job as special adviser on this project.

[1655]

We've seen Mr. Dobell sign an accountability letter over the last four years, in each of the years '04-05, '05-06 and '06-07. It states: "I am accountable for ensuring the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project achieves its specific objectives identified in the

[ Page 8321 ]

plan…for measuring and reporting actual performance."

We've heard the Premier talk about accountability being one of his most important traits and one of the most important things that he wants to bring to government. My question would be, then, to the Premier. How is it accountable to have Mr. Dobell remaining on the board after we see this kind of cost overrun while Mr. Dobell was in charge?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I think I pointed out some of the challenges that have been faced as we have moved through the construction of the convention centre. As we started the convention centre project in 2003, construction inflation was going at about 2 percent. Today cost escalations are between 10 and 12 percent.

Today we have a very strong board in place taking strong measures to ensure that the project is addressing the challenges that it has encountered. It's important to note that that board has construction, marketing and design expertise on it to ensure that we maximize the benefits. I can say again, as has been reported to the opposition, that the expectation is that the full cost of the convention centre will come in, in the range of $800 million.

Having said that, I think it's important to note that back in 1999 when the opposition was trying to design a convention centre, they felt that there would be no partnerships available. There would be no opportunities to bring in others to try and assist in ensuring that a convention centre was built. In fact, at one point they said that the province would go it alone if the cost was a full $900 million.

[1700]

Having said that, I am not happy with the fact that we're dealing with these cost escalations. But I am happy with the board that's in place. I'm certainly happy with the economic opportunities that are being opened up and created by the convention centre. I'm very pleased with the marketplace's response to it when you have 27 conventions already that have been booked, which wouldn't fit into any existing facilities.

When we have the opportunity to generate between 6,000 and 7,000 employment years of activity through this facility, I think this is going to be a project that people in British Columbia point to with pride and that for years to come will be providing an economic return to all the people in the province.

C. James: As the Premier says often, the public will judge this government on its lack of accountability — lack of accountability on the Lottery Corp, lack of accountability on the convention centre. I can't imagine that the public is going to be reassured that no one is accountable for the doubling in cost of the convention centre.

One last question on this section, because it's clear that we're not going to get any kind of accountability from the Premier. I mentioned the accountability letters from Mr. Dobell around the convention centre and the fact that in '05, in '06 and in '06-07 he stated very clearly: "I am accountable for ensuring that the convention centre achieves its specific objectives."

In '07-08, interestingly enough, it now reads in their service letter that the board is accountable for ensuring that the Vancouver convention centre project achieves its specific objectives. My question is: why was Mr. Dobell accountable in those years, and why is the board now accountable?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the Leader of the Opposition should know, VCCEP falls under the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. I can't tell you specifically about that particular change in the service plan, but it sounds like semantics to me. The board is responsible, and the Tourism, Sport and the Arts Ministry wanted to be clear that the board was responsible for that.

There were 11 hours of estimates debate where this could have been fully canvassed. I'm glad to get the information in the future from the minister if the opposition leader would like that.

C. James: One final question around Mr. Dobell. His contract expires tomorrow. Does the Premier plan to extend that contract as a special adviser?

[1705]

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Dobell agreed to serve for two years. The two years will be up on the 30th of May of this year. Yesterday Mr. Dobell received the report — it was yesterday, wasn't it? — from Mr. Loukidelis. I think we should give him the opportunity to decide whether he has any interest in contracting in the future with the government.

I can tell you this, though, hon. Chair. The people and the province of British Columbia have been exceptionally well served by Mr. Dobell over the last two years — and indeed in the previous years in his public service. He was a strong driver of the Pacific gateway initiative that we have undertaken with the federal government.

He was a critical component of the softwood lumber negotiations that were taking place on behalf of the forest industry in British Columbia with the federal government and the United States. He has been a very strong advocate for the interests of our province in dealing with issues around the coastal forest industry.

Indeed, the coastal forest industry is encouraging Mr. Dobell to continue his work with the government. Should he decide that he should like to do that, then that would be something that we'll be able to negotiate in the future.

I do believe it's important to recognize that when we have excellent people in the public service making a significant contribution, we should recognize that, not just through remuneration but through treating them with respect.

I have the utmost respect for Mr. Dobell for all he's done for the province, not just in his role in the provincial government but in his role in TransLink, in his role with the city of Vancouver and in his role working with his colleagues across the country in trying to establish a strong and vital public service that meets all of our needs in an open democracy.

[ Page 8322 ]

I feel fortunate that Mr. Dobell has been willing to work with us over the last two years, and I'm hopeful that he will be interested in continuing his contractual work with the province in the future.

C. James: I'll take that as a maybe, then, from the Premier. That was an answer that could have been given much quicker than the length of time that we're taking between questions.

I understand Mr. Dobell has to make a decision. My question was actually whether the Premier and government are going to look at extending his contract. But as I said, I'll take that as a maybe. It's about as close to an answer as I'm going to get from the Premier during these estimates.

[1710]

I'd like to now move on to climate change and talk a little bit about climate change. There is no question that when the throne speech came out from this government in 2007, it was shocking to most British Columbians — shocking because the government had all of a sudden discovered climate change and had all of a sudden woken up after years of making statements that were against climate change, that showed no interest in climate change, that ruled out global warming as any kind of problem, let alone made any kind of a commitment.

All of a sudden we saw the Speech from the Throne from this Premier that made climate change his top priority. My question to the Premier is: when did the Premier decide to alter his previous policy directions and include climate change as a government concern?

Hon. G. Campbell: I appreciate the question.

First, let me go back and give the leader a little bit of background. The B.C. energy plan, the first B.C. energy plan under this government, was released in 2002. At that time, we pointed out that it should be a requirement that 50 percent of all energy be clean energy. In 2004 a climate action plan was brought forward by the government. I think there was something in the order of 40 steps that were undertaken in that plan.

The Ministry of Environment service plan pointed out that there were targets for greenhouse gas reductions in 2004. In 2004 we announced as a government the five great goals. We established the five great goals, including being recognized for environmental and sustainable management.

In 2006 the government's strategic plan pointed out reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. I think it's important to note that while provincial greenhouse gas emissions went up significantly between 2001 and 2007, in fact, government greenhouse gas emissions went down significantly in the same period of time — not enough to meet our goal of a 33-percent reduction, but it's been something that has been on the agenda for some time in government.

[1715]

C. James: The reason that I asked those questions and started off with this question is because the Premier has been on record as ignoring climate change and in fact not agreeing with climate change. Just to remind him, in case he's forgotten some of his own quotes, in November 2002 the Premier said: "The only climate the Kyoto protocol signed by Canada is going to change is the economic climate." Again, in June 2002: "There has been little in the way of facts and a whole bunch in the way of rhetoric around climate change." These are quotes from the Premier himself.

In November 2006, during a speech to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, the Premier said that offshore oil and gas reserves might be open to development within two or three years. "Stay tuned. You'll see opportunities expand." Again, in December '06: "No matter what we do" — this is regarding coal plants — "in British Columbia we won't have much impact on the world scene."

It's very clear that this government had an unbelievable change of heart, even if it's only in words, when we see those kinds of comments from the Premier months before the throne speech came out and surprised everyone.

My next question, then, to the Premier is: when did the government decide that it was going to set targets for greenhouse gas reduction?

[J. Nuraney in the chair.]

Hon. G. Campbell: Well, I just actually went through some of the government's initiatives with my last answer. In 2004 the ministry service plan actually set greenhouse gas reduction targets. In 2006 we set greenhouse gas emission targets again.

I think that the Leader of the Opposition should just take a moment and listen to some of her own backbenchers with regard to her position on climate change. While we have been pursuing our goals with regard to climate change for some time, the Leader of the Opposition's own member points out: "We appear to have no plan or response or thought about climate change and Kyoto." That was the MLA for Nelson-Creston in 2005.

In October of 2006: "Our party has no idea how to deal with climate change." In April of 2006 the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows said: "The record of the last government" — i.e., the NDP government of the 1990s — "was not good on climate change."

We would be the last group to claim that we have met all of the challenges that are in front of us. However, this has been something that has been on the government's agenda. We laid out an aggressive plan in the throne speech of 2007. We are carrying that plan out. We're carrying it out in concert with the Pacific coast states, with other provinces, with industrial sectors and with individual citizens across the province.

I am confident that the initiatives we've undertaken will result not just in a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emission by 2020, but we will have a plan in place that will meet goals on the way, in 2012 and 2016. The government will be carbon-neutral by 2010. And equally importantly, I think, as we pursue those goals, we will not just improve the quality of the environment and our air quality and reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions we have, but we will also increase

[ Page 8323 ]

our opportunities for productivity gains and for competitiveness gains in British Columbia and in this jurisdiction.

[1720]

C. James: The Premier can point fingers everywhere else, but whether he likes it or not, this is about his record and his government's record and what they've done on climate change and his own quotes on climate change. It's very clear that the Premier said one thing and did just the other. The Premier has put down words about climate change but actually in actions and in his other words was doing just the opposite and was trying to in fact say that climate change wasn't important for the government to pay attention to.

Just to get into more specifics from the Premier, could the Premier tell us what analysis was done to come up with a number for a 33-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 — the first time the government has put a number on that? I'd like to know how that number was arrived at.

[1725]

Hon. G. Campbell: I concur with the Leader of the Opposition that we should be judged on the basis of the results we get. Between 2000 and 2004 the government of British Columbia watched as our greenhouse gas emissions were actually reduced by 24 percent. The province continues to have the second-lowest per-capita greenhouse gas emissions with regard to other provinces in the country.

As we talked about how we move ahead, our province felt that it was critical that British Columbians be given the credit they were due for the work they have done. We set targets in 2007. We made a deliberate choice to set a goal that would take us 10 percent below the 1990 levels.

We made a choice to take some time to actually accomplish that goal, because we realized that we had to include all members of the public, various sectors of the economy and the government itself. We watched as, according to Environment Canada, greenhouse gas emissions for 2005 actually decreased by 2.4 percent. That was in sp