2006 Legislative Session: Second 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 16, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Utilities Commission

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill M208)

Gentner

Statements (Standing

Order 25 B )

Child care system

Thorne

Provincial sales tax review

Sultan

Arne Knudsen

Gentner

Volunteers in Burnaby and

Coquitlam

Bloy

Ridge Meadows Women's Centre

Sather

Mining industry in interior

B.C.

Rustad

Oral Questions

Softwood lumber agreement

Simpson

Hon.

R. Coleman

James

Hon.

G. Campbell

Farnworth

Government response to

forestry concerns in Port Alberni

Fraser

Hon.

R. Coleman

Traffic safety on Pattullo

Bridge

Ralston

Hon.

J. Les

Brar

Waiting lists for child care

Thorne

Hon.

L. Reid

Financial assistance for

immigrant students

Robertson

Hon.

M. Coell

Petitions

D. Cubberley

J. Kwan

M. Karagianis

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the

Premier (continued)

James

Hon.

G. Campbell

Sather

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism

(continued)

Chouhan

Hon.

W. Oppal

Kwan

Krog

Estimates: Other

appropriations

[ Page 4903 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2006

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: We have the pleasure today of welcoming representatives from the Multiple Sclerosis Society to the House. In particular, we look forward to welcoming Kathy Croucher, Todd Abercrombie and Chris Fortune to the Legislature.

They've provided all members of the House with a red carnation. The red carnation is a symbol of hope in the search for a cure for multiple sclerosis. They're also here to recognize that recently May was proclaimed as Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month in British Columbia.

I ask that the House please make these guests welcome and applaud the wonderful work they do in raising awareness of MS and in searching for a cure.

[1405]

M. Farnworth: Well, there are a number of great schools in my riding, hon. Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce a group of grade 11 students from the B.C. Christian Academy accompanied by their teacher Mr. Wiens. They are here today to learn about how this chamber functions. Would the House please make them most welcome.

M. Polak: Today in the precincts, visiting from my riding of Langley, are students in a grade five class from Belmont Elementary School. Along with them are two very good friends of mine, Cindy and Tanaya Hof. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: Today in the gallery visiting us from Toronto are my parents. Pearl and Hy Chud are here today. Everything I ever needed to know about politics and social justice, I learned from them. Please help me in making them welcome.

J. Rustad: It's a great pleasure today to introduce someone who comes to us from Ontario, who was sworn in yesterday as our new Ombudsman for British Columbia — Kim Carter. She comes with excellent references, and I look forward to the work that she will be doing for us in this province.

D. Routley: One of the fine schools in my riding is Lake Cowichan Secondary in the beautiful town of Lake Cowichan where, of course, it never rains. They are visiting us with a group of students from Trois-Rivières, Quebec, and their coordinators are with them as well. The coordinator from Trois-Rivières is Isobel Guy. She has brought 23 students with her. The coordinating teacher from Lake Cowichan is Vanessa MacDowell, with 21 students. They've come to see how politics works inside the House, and outside they got to see that the best politics works from the ground up into this chamber.

Hon. K. Falcon: In the precinct today we are joined by 26 grade five students from Cloverdale Catholic elementary school. They are joined by their teacher Ms. Brady, along with five parents who are accompanying them. I would ask the House to please help me make them welcome today.

R. Fleming: In the gallery with us today is a constituent of mine. It's Dr. Larry Hannant, who's an adjunct professor of history at the University of Victoria and a contributor to the Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History website. Would the House please make Dr. Hannant feel welcome.

C. Trevena: We've had lots of introductions of school parties, but school parties would be nowhere without their teachers. I hope the House will make welcome one of the guests in the gallery, a constituent of mine and a retired teacher. Julia Davies taught for 28 years in Gold River. I hope the House will make her very welcome.

Hon. C. Richmond: A young gentleman from Fort McMurray is visiting us today — Blake Robert. Blake has participated in the youth model parliament in B.C. for the past few years, and he will be attending University Canada West this fall. Would the House please make him most welcome.

S. Fraser: There are a number of residents from my constituency here today, who are concerned about child care issues. Would you help me welcome four of my constituents: Margaret McGarry and Nikky Bezanson from the Hummingbird Child Care Centre and Alannah Miller and Marion Pickton from North Island College. Please help me make them feel welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: My colleague the member for Mount Pleasant and my leader insist that I introduce to you once again a woman who I have introduced to you before. You'll know her as the finest political organizer in the known universe. Ruth Herman, my partner, is in the gallery again today.

[1410]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

UTILITIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

G. Gentner presented a bill intituled Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2006.

G. Gentner: I move the bill be read a first time today.

Motion approved.

G. Gentner: I'm pleased to introduce the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2006, before the House today. This bill stipulates that proposed high-voltage

[ Page 4904 ]

transmission lines located within the vicinity of settled areas, parks, recreational areas, residential areas, private and public schools, child day facilities and playgrounds will come under immense scrutiny under provincial law. The bill mandates the Utilities Commission to weigh adverse effects, including electromagnetic fields and all policies concerning public health and safety.

The mandate of the B.C. Utilities Commission must move forward and reflect the 21st century with a strengthened triple-bottom-line approach. This bill spells out new stringent siting criteria for overhead electrical transmission lines with a capacity of 345 kilovolts within a residential neighbourhood.

We must recognize the threat of EMF to public health. For example, the following family in Delta has been severely impacted. Four out of five family members who live in a home along a right-of-way have been diagnosed with cancer. One brother at 30 with bowel cancer. His sister diagnosed with ovarian cancer. The father, prostate. The step-mom died of lung cancer. A neighbour on one side has stomach cancer, and the other two neighbours both have died of cancer.

In many jurisdictions, legislation has tightened up EMF regs. The bill directs the Utilities Commission to consider keeping high-voltage transmission lines away from residential areas and states that any proposal to increase the voltage of transmission facilities within residential areas would automatically trigger a review to see if a viable alternative can be found.

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

Bill M208, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2006, 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) CHILD CARE SYSTEM

D. Thorne: May is Child Care Month, the month during which we draw attention to the important and valuable work undertaken by early childhood educators. Their contribution to society and to our children is immeasurable. For this, I thank them.

Quality child care is important not just for children, who actually need early childhood education to develop in a healthy way, but it's also important for parents because it allows them to work without fear for the safety of their child. Recent statistics show the true costs of child care to be about $54,000 from birth to age 18.

This reality has finally forced a public discussion about child care in a country and indeed a province that has not, according to the OECD, developed a coherent long-term vision for early learning and child care. This lack of a plan in British Columbia for child care further highlights the OECD's criticisms, which are most strongly felt by parents of the children we are discussing and early childhood educators, who operate within a disparate and under-resourced patchwork of services.

Quality within the child care system hinges on trained staff, livable wages, and affordable and accessible child care spaces. Early childhood educators in this province are the key to the development of a quality system, working alongside the provincial government that is openly and aggressively committed to this worthwhile goal. It is clear that the federal government has wiped its hands of a universal system of child care. This is a monumental loss to all of us and to all Canadians. We must all take action. We need to invest in our children today.

PROVINCIAL SALES TAX REVIEW

R. Sultan: I rise today to talk about the provincial sales tax. Last June this government, under the leadership of our Premier, committed to a comprehensive review of British Columbia's PST. The Minister of Small Business and Revenue was asked to go across the province to meet British Columbians and to listen. The Premier asked the minister to receive this advice and use it to design a PST which was simpler, more streamlined and more fair.

[1415]

From November through April the minister chaired consultation sessions in 20 communities from Abbotsford to Williams Lake. I played a support role in about a third of those meetings. Many businesspersons told us they hope PST administration could be made less challenging. For example, the government expects retail clerks to remember that paint used for fishing boats is tax-exempt, while paint used for whale-watching boats is not. On and on it goes.

Progress is already being achieved. For example, the B.C. Agriculture Council is working on streamlined PST rules with the minister, for agriculture. Meanwhile, hundreds of submissions have been received. As an observer, I've been impressed by the degree of public interest and by the commitment and zeal of ministry staff.

There is still time for the public to submit their advice, but the deadline is only three days away. E-mail the minister your advice at www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/pstreview or by fax or post. British Columbians should not miss this golden opportunity to further improve the tax environment for B.C.'s thriving commercial sector.

ARNE KNUDSEN

G. Gentner: On May 29, Delta is recognizing Arne Knudsen. Arne arrived in Delta in 1929, and like thousands, he rode the rails. However, in this remarkable story, by 1936 he was on the podium staring down Hitler as the recipient of the Olympic bronze medal for swimming.

Arne knew what fascism was, and a year later he was fighting Franco. During the Second World War he

[ Page 4905 ]

became one of Canada's expert anti-tank gunners. On July 10, 1943, Sergeant Knudsen led the first Canadian division to Sicily. In Italy he became a prisoner of the Nazis, but before escaping, he promised the prison commander that he would visit his family in Saskatchewan. The commander died in an Allied bombing raid, but Arne fulfilled his word and did pay a visit to a little town in Saskatchewan.

At Savio he took shrapnel in the leg and, later, a bullet through his shoulder. Arne is one of the most decorated soldiers of British Columbia. His most cherished award is the Bronze Star he received at the White House from President Truman for his courageous bravery in saving members of the Tennessee Rangers on January 11, 1944.

After the war, Arne settled in North Delta and became a chicken farmer and an operating engineer. By 1946 Arne started the North Delta Ratepayers Association and became captain of the volunteer fire department by purchasing a 1926 Studebaker fire truck.

On May 6, Arne Knudsen celebrated his 96th birthday. He is the stuff that builds communities, and he is the second person ever to receive the Freedom of the Municipality Award, Delta. In my community, Arne is an icon, and I ask this assembly to please recognize somebody who has truly made a difference.

VOLUNTEERS IN BURNABY AND COQUITLAM

H. Bloy: It is well known that volunteers are integral to building and maintaining strong communities. Through their hard work and commitment, volunteers and community service organizations provide an invaluable service to communities across British Columbia. The result is significant cultural, economic, social and educational benefit for our communities.

One in three people living in the cities of Burnaby and Coquitlam volunteers for various organizations. That's 145,000 people in all who provide assistance to these organizations to make the region a better place to live.

It has been my pleasure to deliver grants to many of these groups in my riding of Burquitlam. SHARE Family and Community Services Society is one such recipient, led by Joanne Granek. This non-profit agency provides leadership and programs to people of all ages to strengthen families and communities.

Another recipient is the Stoney Creek streamkeepers association, led by Jennifer Atchinson and her many volunteers. Their efforts in preserving and maintaining the salmon spawning creek and watershed will make sure the creek will be there for future generations to enjoy.

There are so many groups that I could name: B.C. Adoption; Burnaby Mountain Biking Association, led by Ron Burton; Variety, the children's charity; Scouts; Guides; Lions; the Rotary Club; Kinsmen; Burnaby Family Life; sports groups; and the cultural and arts. These groups and their hard-working volunteers are making a real difference, and I am proud that we are able to support their work. I want to thank all the volunteers who make British Columbia the best place on earth to live.

[1420]

RIDGE MEADOWS WOMEN'S CENTRE

M. Sather: This afternoon I am pleased to speak about the excellent work being done by the Ridge Meadows Women's Centre in Pitt Meadows. The centre has been providing poverty relief and support to Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows residents for over ten years. Some of the programs that the centre provides include a nutritional hot lunch program; a bread bank, emergency food; clothing and household items, including children's clothing and bikes. They also run a furniture donation registry for beds and couches, self-help groups, a moms group, and they provide space for Al-Anon and other local self-help groups.

Until recently, the Women's Centre operated with a staff of three and approximately ten volunteers. Due to a lack of funding, the centre is now left with only one staff — its coordinator, Cheryl Lynne Peters. Cheryl Lynne has cut back on her hours and her pay so that the centre can remain open for a longer period. As it now stands, unless they receive the funding they have requested, the centre will close its doors on June 1.

In a typical month the centre helps approximately 200 to 300 women and receives between 100 and 200 phone inquiries, crisis calls and referrals. Cheryl Lynne recently told me a story of one of the women who goes to the centre once a week to get bread for her three children and herself. One day she walked in limping, and Cheryl Lynne asked if something was wrong. She said her feet hurt. When Cheryl Lynne looked down, she saw that the shoes she was wearing were really worn and didn't fit properly. She took her down to the area where they have clothes and shoes, and she came back out with a nice pair of shoes and clothes for her and her children.

The centre also arranged for the woman to get a food hamper. The woman was so grateful that she told Cheryl Lynne that without the centre, she could not live. She explained that she had moved to Pitt Meadows because of the low rent, but she didn't have a car, and she was barely making ends meet to take care of herself and her three children.

MINING INDUSTRY IN INTERIOR B.C.

J. Rustad: Everyone knows the impact that the mountain pine beetle is having on the central interior. The red menace is creating huge challenges, and government is working with municipalities, first nations and community-based groups to meet the challenges head-on. With the annual allowable cut expected to drop in the next seven to ten years, it's imperative that we help to create alternatives for the people working in the forest industry.

Mining presents one of the best opportunities to ensure that rural residents can continue to maintain the lifestyles they've chosen. A little more than a year ago

[ Page 4906 ]

the province committed $25 million for the creation of Geoscience B.C., whose job it is to identify mineral potential in the province and to provide the first glimpse of where resources might be found. This is absolutely essential, because if we're to diversify, we need to know where the resources are and provide the blueprint for exploration.

The central interior has been traditionally underexplored. The focus of Geoscience B.C. and mining companies is much welcome. We want the jobs, and we want the stability that the mining sector can bring. Mining provides good, family-supporting jobs. The average wage in the mining industry is $94,000 a year, including benefits. Those are the kinds of jobs that can really help families build a future not just for themselves but for generations to come.

We all know there will be a transition period for our rural economy due to the mountain pine beetle. The prospect presented by mining — whether it's Mount Milligan or Prosperity in my riding, or an unknown deposit — means truck drivers, millwrights and loggers can stay in places they have come to call home. As mining thrives, it provides real optimism for the people of the central interior for a bright and prosperous future.

Oral Questions

SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT

B. Simpson: Yesterday the Minister of Forests said that he was pleased the proposed softwood deal recognized first-mill price for remanufacturers. He stated on numerous occasions that this part of the deal is vital to the continued viability of the value-added sector.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. Can the minister assure this House that every value-added mill and the workers that depend on these mills will be treated exactly the same under the proposed softwood deal?

[1425]

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you to the member for his question. Under the deal, if a value-added manufacturer buys its lumber from a first mill, they pay first-mill price. If a value-added manufacturer is actually using its own wood from its own mill, they will be tied to a high-value cap.

B. Simpson: The opposition has obtained a copy of the proposed softwood agreement as of 10:10 this morning. According to this document, the first-mill price is only for companies operating independently from tenure holders — something the minister failed to mention yesterday. That means that thousands of jobs are still threatened in the value-added sector under the deal, depending on whether or not their mill qualifies for this first-mill price.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. Who will define the list of B.C. value-added mills that will survive this deal? Will it be this government? Will it be Ottawa, or will it be Washington, D.C.?

Hon. R. Coleman: Rather than react to a nonsensical question on information that's completely untrue in this particular case…. You do not have a copy of the deal, hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, through the Chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: The deal isn't written. It's being technically put together, hon. Speaker, right now with people in jurisdictions across this country.

What you may have in front of you is what somebody else's concept of the deal may be — hon. member, through the Speaker. But you do not have the softwood lumber deal in front of you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo North has a further supplemental.

B. Simpson: I do, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: …that will get the preferred pricing is critical to the long-term viability of communities and the jobs of workers who depend on this value-added sector.

Again, my question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. When will this list be defined, and when will Washington let our communities and our workers know which value-added mills are going to survive this deal and which mills are not?

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, through to the member: I don't care if you've got a draft of a document in front of you. I can tell you that even today in British Columbia, technical people are meeting with people from the ambassador's office of the United States with regards to what might be language contained in a softwood lumber agreement with Canada and the United States.

I can tell you that we have groups of people — on the legal language side, on the technical side and on the industry side — working right now with regards to this agreement. Because the member has a draft of something that whoever may have written…. He has it

[ Page 4907 ]

in front of him. That he wants to purport it to be the final document or a document on softwood is completely incorrect.

[1430]

Hon. Speaker, through to the member: I want to remind you of this one little quote. "I think it's time to get serious. It's time to sit down at the table, provincial and federal governments together — I certainly hope that occurs — and get a deal worked out. I think it has been much too long." That was the Leader of the Opposition on the 17th of March.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The Leader of the Official Opposition has the floor.

C. James: I appreciate the Minister of Forests talking about how passionate I am in ensuring that we get a good deal for the softwood, that we get a good deal for British Columbia — not a deal at no cost. A deal good for the people of British Columbia — that's the difference.

The minister says he doesn't care. Well, I can tell you that the opposition cares, and certainly the people of British Columbia care. The member for Cariboo North has raised some very important questions about the softwood deal. This morning the Premier said his only concern with the agreement had to do with legal proceedings by the American government.

My question to the Premier is: how can the Premier say that was the only concern when we see in a draft agreement a concern about jobs and communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've been very clear that there is a value-added protection in this agreement, that there is a first-mill pricing in this agreement, that there's a high-value cap in this agreement. The member opposite may want to question in her mind whether she thinks this is a good deal for British Columbians, but I can tell the member opposite that I have spoken to the reman sector. I have spoken to the value-added sector. I have spoken to large industries and small. I can tell the member opposite that there is huge support in the B.C. forest sector for this deal.

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

C. James: I'm pleased to hear the Forests Minister has been talking to people, because that's exactly the direction that we as the opposition have been raising. It's important for the people of this province to be able to have a say on the softwood deal.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. We listened to the answer. Let's listen to the question.

Continue.

C. James: Let's take a look at the chronology here. The Premier said this was a great deal for British Columbia. The Forests Minister a little while later said this is the best deal B.C. could get. Then this morning we heard the Premier say it wasn't actually a deal; it's just a draft agreement.

So my question is very simple. British Columbians deserve to know the details of this agreement and how it will affect their jobs and their communities. Will the Premier assure British Columbians, before he signs off on the final agreement, that they will have an opportunity for a public debate on this deal?

Hon. G. Campbell: The softwood lumber negotiations have been ongoing for some time. There was a previous softwood lumber agreement which the Leader of the Opposition may not be aware of. We have a framework agreement that's in place, and as I said this morning, one of the things that is important as we go through this agreement is to get the details of the agreement in place.

I want the Leader of the Opposition and all the members of the opposition and all the people in British Columbia to hear this. These are B.C.'s forests. These will be B.C.'s laws. It will be B.C.'s forest practices that are put in place, and British Columbia's forest industry will continue to strive under a softwood agreement that will create stability and long-term opportunity for workers across this province, in the coast and in the interior.

[1435]

M. Farnworth: This side of the House has just told that side of the House that we have received a draft copy of the agreement as of 10:10 this morning. The Minister of Forests says it is a work-in-progress, and then he stands up and says: "But everyone signed on to the deal."

Well, that's not how it works. People sign on when there's a deal out there and they can see where everything is — where every "i" and "t" is dotted and crossed. Until that deal has been tabled in this House for the people of British Columbia to see, we are going to continue to ask questions to ensure that the rights of workers and communities in this province are protected in that deal.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: The problem is that the drafts of today have a problem of becoming the permanent text of tomorrow.

Once again, to the Premier: before this deal is done, will the people of this province have an opportunity to examine the deal, to have an open debate on the deal on the floor of this Legislature so that they can ensure that the interests of workers and forest companies and the public of British Columbia are protected in that deal?

Hon. R. Coleman: I should remind the member that this isn't the jobs and timber accord that we're….

[ Page 4908 ]

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is actually an international trade agreement between two countries that's getting done — something that hasn't been done in a long, long time. It's something that's going to actually settle some problems this country has faced for a long, long time. It's going to change even the international relationship between our two countries on a whole plethora of other files.

Through to the hon. member: I just want to have him think about this. Just after it was announced that there was a framework agreement, an e-mail came to my office from a small manufacturer in the Fraser Valley. He said this: "Thank you for getting this done. Tonight I will tell my 80 employees they have full-time work and a future with my company because of what you did."

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

FORESTRY CONCERNS IN PORT ALBERNI

S. Fraser: The Premier just eloquently stated that the trees in B.C. belong to the people of B.C. Well, the people of Port Alberni and the Alberni Valley have been watching thousands of truckloads of logs leave their valley, and they're coming here to the Legislature tomorrow out of frustration.

Two months ago the Minister of Forests and Range promised that he would visit Port Alberni and see the results of some of those forest policies on the ground. He discounted the concerns of those residents as private land issues. Well, in 2004 this government removed land — 70,000 hectares — from TFL 44 — outside of the public scrutiny and public rules. That was done without public consultation, and it was done against the advice of ministerial staff.

Since his government created the problems in Port Alberni, what will this minister do to correct them?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's interesting — this question coming in this tone from this member — when I actually told the member that the reason I didn't make it to Port Alberni during the break weeks is because I was buried, working on negotiations on the softwood lumber file to find a long-term solution for forestry in British Columbia.

If the member were actually paying attention, he would know that I've also spent a week in estimates debates. I've had two pieces of legislation in this House since that period of time, and — oh, by the way — I happened to go up to Port Alice to open a pulp mill that had been shut down, because the government did something. On Friday we opened the largest OSB plant in the world in Fort St. John.

[1440]

I also told the member at the time that I would get to Port Alberni after session. We only have three more days to go. The fact of the matter is…. The member is also aware of the fact that the coalition has concerns in the valley. The mayor of Port Alberni and other people will be meeting with me tomorrow afternoon at three o'clock to discuss this very issue.

TRAFFIC SAFETY ON PATTULLO BRIDGE

B. Ralston: Five lives have been lost on the Pattullo Bridge this year — 15 since 2001. In almost all cases, speed has been a contributing factor. Surrey RCMP traffic operations sergeant Paul Mulvihill has noted that his division responds on a daily basis to incidents on the bridge. Prevention? The RCMP had this to say. "It's impossible to go on that bridge and do any enforcement."

What has been the response of the Solicitor General to the cry for a simple, cost-effective solution? He says: "It's not going to happen." For him, apparently, politics is more important than safety.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Will he make the safety of motorists on the Pattullo Bridge a priority and install a speed camera on the Pattullo Bridge?

Hon. J. Les: Traffic enforcement is an issue of concern for all of us in this House. I'm happy to report to the House that we've made numerous investments in policing resources across the province, specifically in the lower mainland as well. We have seen the largest increase in policing resources in British Columbia in a generation in the last four years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: As well, we have returned traffic fine revenues to municipalities. That's an additional $50 million a year going into municipalities to help pay for policing. As well, we have integrated our policing resources in the province so that they are better able to operate interjurisdictionally to help address some of these issues.

B. Ralston: The same Sergeant Mulvihill says that there are no further police resources in the Surrey detachment to do any extra traffic enforcement on the Pattullo Bridge. There are others who have expressed the same view as myself.

The Minister of Transportation has said: "In the case of a fixed camera on a bridge, the thinking person would ask how different that is from intersection cameras that photograph people going through red lights." Indeed, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps the Solicitor General can tell us how it is that his cabinet colleague readily recognizes the solution to the problem, and he doesn't. Will the Solicitor General make a commitment today to put safety first on the Pattullo Bridge?

Hon. J. Les: Let me be very clear. There are no plans to reintroduce photo radar in British Columbia.

I think I have also been very clear, in terms of my previous answer, that we have made numerous addi-

[ Page 4909 ]

tional resources available to municipalities and to the police in British Columbia. If there are particular spots where increased enforcement is needed, the resources are there. It's a matter of allocation.

J. Brar: I think the minister needs to understand his portfolio more clearly. We are asking about the Pattullo Bridge, not the police. All the questions aren't about police. We understand about the police issue.

We do need a cost-effective and safe solution for the Pattullo Bridge. The situation is very clear. The city council of Surrey is on board. The RCMP is on board. All members of this side of the House are on board. Even the Minister of Transportation, from that side of the House, is on board. There is only one person who is refusing to take action, and that's the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[1445]

Clearly, the minister is not listening to the people of British Columbia and the people of Surrey on this issue. We are not asking for photo radar. We are asking for a speed camera. The minister needs to understand that.

I will give one more chance to the minister. Will the minister commit today to implementing a proactive and effective solution to stem the carnage on the Pattullo Bridge?

Hon. J. Les: There seems to be one issue that the member opposite forgets about. That is the fact that it's actually TransLink that is responsible for the operation of the bridge. I am aware, as I suspect the member opposite is aware as well…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: …that they actually have plans to add certain features to the bridge that'll make it safer for people to drive. I applaud that response by TransLink. If there are any other bells and whistles they'd like to add to the bridge, obviously they're free to do that.

WAITING LISTS FOR CHILD CARE

D. Thorne: Quality child care must be available and accessible to the families that need it most when they need it. This government says it is committed to providing this. Yet they have no plan to deal with the growing wait-lists at child care centres across this province. For every available child care space, there are nine children who need it. That means nine sets of parents who may have to consider leaving the workforce because of their impossible situation.

This question is for the Minister of State for Childcare. This crisis is today, not tomorrow. What is your government going to do to address these growing wait-lists now?

Hon. L. Reid: This government is committed to the creation of quality child care experiences in British Columbia, and our record speaks for itself. We very much want parents to have the opportunity to work, to study and to parent effectively. In the past ten months this government has created 1,500 new child care spaces.

Frankly, I would put our ten months up against the previous administration's ten years in terms of the creation of child care spaces in British Columbia — 1,498 spaces, an additional thousand spaces renovated in the province, so 2,500 opportunities for children to be in quality child care in British Columbia. That is our commitment. We have delivered on it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: Well, according to the minister, things are going along just swimmingly. If that's the case, why is there a child care rally going on right now, as we speak, on the front lawn of the Legislature? There are hundreds of worried, frustrated and angry parents and their children on the front lawn. I was there; I spoke. I may have missed members from the opposite side, but I didn't see anybody there, because they think things are going along so swimmingly.

If things are so great in British Columbia and we have so many new spaces, why are there still 1,500 people on the waiting lists at Collingwood Neighbourhood House? Why does it take two years to get a child care space in Victoria? Does this minister not remember that it was her government that cut subsidies $285 a month, forcing children out of child care centres and child care centres out of business?

When will this government finally admit they are failing B.C. families and make a real investment in child care in this province?

[1450]

Hon. L. Reid: Actions in British Columbia speak louder than words. The individuals we have consulted with across this province have asked for a lift in subsidy. We delivered. They asked for a lift in child care operating funding. We delivered. They asked for a lift in supported child development funding. We delivered. They asked for a lift in child care resource and referral funding. We delivered. Those supports are in place today for British Columbia families.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. L. Reid: I would invite any member opposite — other than continuing to build support for a rally — to actually be constructive, be proactive and build a child care space in British Columbia. We, indeed, have municipalities today that are partnering with us, school districts that are partnering with us, aboriginal communities and non-profits — people who are delivering in the best interests of British Columbia families. British Columbia will be better as a result.

[ Page 4910 ]

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

FOR IMMIGRANT STUDENTS

G. Robertson: This morning I was with a group of students in Vancouver who are desperately seeking help from the Minister of Advanced Education. They represent hundreds of students struggling to make sense of the decisions that are made by the B.C. student assistance program. They applied for and received grants, paid their tuition and started their studies. Now the government is going after them for those grants, plus interest. Debts are as high as $11,000. Many are desperate. They've quit their studies and are working low-wage jobs just to try to cover their payments.

Somewhere between the private institutions and the government, the system failed these students. What is the Minister of Advanced Education doing to get to the bottom of this, and what is he going to do to help these students?

Hon. M. Coell: The province makes available yearly about $300 million for student loans. Landed immigrants are treated like domestic students when they apply. Since the 1990s governments have audited about 5 percent of student loans every year. They also audit institutions. When those audits are done — and they agree to those audits before they receive their payments — it gives the credibility to the taxpayers for those programs.

I am aware of a number of the students that the member brings forward, because they've written me and copied him. We take those very seriously, and we're looking into them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fairview has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: These students are landed immigrants. Almost all are professionals from mainland China who came to B.C. to build a new life, to upgrade their degrees and credentials. What does that say about how we welcome new immigrants from China? They trusted this government for financial assistance. Now they have huge debts for an education they didn't get. Some are single mothers. Many are families with small children. The system messed up.

To date, the minister has let these people down. He's failed to release the audit information to help clear up the confusion. Will the minister commit today to personally intervene and find a way to help these new immigrant students?

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry intervened as soon as it got a letter from those students. We are working with student services to do audits on those institutions. We're doing audits that will, hopefully, help some of those students.

The member also asked me during estimates whether we would release that information. I told him that it would be done shortly and would be released to him shortly. He also asked for a lot of other reports — he didn't need to go through freedom of information — which we just made available to him. That's another way that they can get the information they want. Just ask for it rather than go through freedom of information.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. Cubberley: I have a petition from 126 registered nurses that I would like to table in support of a comprehensive medical safety sharp regulation.

[1455]

J. Kwan: I also rise to table a petition. This is a petition to ask the government to stop the emergency cuts at Mount Saint Joseph Hospital, along with seven endorsing organizations, which are the Chinese Benevolent Association, the Cheng Wing Yeong Tong, the Shon Yee Benevolent Association of Canada, the Chinese Freemasons of Canada national headquarters, the Gee How Oak Tin Association of Vancouver and the Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society. Together there are 3,239 signatures.

M. Karagianis: I rise to present a petition. This is from residents in my riding who are opposed to the commercial endeavours at Royal Roads University. I have 119 signatures.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, for the information of members, I call Committee of Supply in this chamber — the continued estimates of the Office of the Premier, and in the other House, Committee A, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism.

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 2:59 p.m.

On Vote 9: Office of the Premier, $12,482,000 (continued).

H. Bains: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: In the House today is my good friend, the person who was actually instrumental in my cam-

[ Page 4911 ]

paign, Mr. Pardonsing Takur, and his wife, and they are joined by their guest. Would the House join me in welcoming them to this House, please.

[1500]

Debate Continued

C. James: Continuing on where we left off at lunchtime today, which was talking about health care and some of the challenges around the province and some specific examples of challenges around the province, I'd like to talk a little bit about the interior health region. As we know, the health region was hardest hit when it came to bed cuts. We saw one in five long-term care beds, almost a thousand beds in that region alone, cut by the Liberal government. The acute care bed cuts went even deeper: 24 percent of the beds were cut there.

Again, following along in a similar kind of discussion that we had this morning, where we talked about the impact of decisions that were made, my question to the Premier is: the crisis in the interior health region that's been raised by doctors, by nurses, by patients and families — does the Premier see a relationship between those specific beds in this region…? I'm not talking about the general numbers that the Premier was disputing this morning. I am talking about specific numbers in that region. Does the Premier see that those specific decisions to cut those beds in the interior health region had an impact on the quality of health care we see right now in the interior health region?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, I think it's important to recognize that the Health estimates are actually carried out separately from the Premier's estimates.

I am glad to speak generally about what we've been trying to accomplish in health care. When we were elected government, we had 52 health authorities across the province consuming dollars and resources and taking away from people. We had a challenge with specialists in interior communities. We had a challenge with physicians in rural communities.

The approach that we've taken was to say that what we wanted to do was to expand the opportunity for workers. We expanded the opportunity for training across the province. We've expanded the investment across the province. The Interior Health Authority is a large health authority, and the details of the Interior Health Authority's plan can be canvassed in estimates. I'm surprised after 16 hours of estimates that these questions weren't canvassed.

I can tell you this. In Canada we have faced some substantial challenges; in British Columbia we have. I mentioned some of those this morning. The plan that we laid out provides for people, provides for facilities, provides for services, provides for substantial capital investment. We're going to continue to pursue those goals and those objectives.

Just to go back. Are there going to be challenges in health care? Of course there are. They're going to be ongoing. Are we making progress? Yes, we're making substantial progress.

If I can just talk for a moment about what we are trying to do in health care, because I think that's important. We, frankly, very seldom hear from the opposition about what their objectives are. Our objective was to fill a substantial human resource deficit that was allowed to build up over the 1990s. It's going to be a challenge that's ongoing not only as the population ages and puts more demands on the health care system but as the health care providers age and decide that they want to go and do something else.

I think the fact is, under the current circumstances where we watch as the province has invested over $3.5 billion more in the last five and a half years in our health care system, that we have to look at how we can deal with those resources in a more positive way. The reason that we want to engage British Columbians and the opposition in a discussion about how we improve health care for them is that it's actually all of us that are going to have to be part of that solution.

We've invested substantial new resources in health prevention. That's not going to pay off in the next month. It's going to pay off in the next number of years — maybe over the next decade. We are trying to encourage British Columbians to be more physically active.

All of those things will take place in the interior. They'll take place in the lower mainland. They'll take place in the north. There have been significant investments in the interior health region to try and provide facilities for people, better locations for specialists to be located, whether it's in Kamloops or in Cranbrook or in other communities in the interior.

I think that the Interior Health Authority has had some challenges. They have tried to deal with those upfront. They've dealt with them openly, and I think they've made real progress over the last number of years.

[1505]

C. James: It's very clear the Premier is uncomfortable when I'm asking questions around health care and would prefer that I only ever asked the Health Minister those questions. Reality is that the Premier made health care an issue of the Premier's office. He might remember back to his own throne speech, which mentioned that health care was a priority for the Premier and government. I think it's only approachable to ask the Premier questions on health care when the Premier has stated very clearly that this is an issue of importance to him, so I'll continue on to ask another specific question.

Yesterday we learned that emergency physicians at Mount Saint Joseph will not be cut, that emergency service, in fact, is going to remain the same for seven months. If the June 1 cut had gone ahead, only one doctor would have been available at Mount Saint Joseph's emergency between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. The cancellation of the cut, as we all know, is a huge victory for patients, the community who spoke out and the doctors who spoke out.

Can the Premier please tell us where the funding for this expansion of care is coming from? Will it come from the Ministry of Health, or will it come from the internal budget of Providence Health?

[ Page 4912 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm pleased to talk about this, because the Leader of the Opposition has raised it.

What is the government? What is our vision? What did we raise in the throne speech? We raised the fact that health care in Canada needs to be sustainable. Here's the choice. The opposition faces it, too, and frankly, I don't hear anything from the opposition. I've heard no vision from the opposition on what to do. The fact of the matter is: we have to decide whether we want our health care system to be sustainable or not. Do we want the next generation and the generation of Canadians that follow them to have a sustainable, long-term health care system? We want it to be sustainable. We believe that we have to engage the people of British Columbia in that discussion.

I had the opportunity to go and visit four separate countries around Europe that had actually done better than British Columbia in a lot of cases, and better than Canada in a lot of cases, in meeting the needs that their people had identified. I think it's important to go outside of the province to hear what else is happening, to see how we can do better.

Now, we've heard from the opposition that you shouldn't go outside, or you should go outside, that you should have a conversation, or you shouldn't have a conversation. Everybody knows what to do.

Well, I can tell you that the opposition doesn't know what to do, hon. Chair. This is what we know. The challenge for me is not that I don't want to talk about health care; it's that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't much like the facts.

Here are the facts. There has been a 56-percent increase in the funding for physicians at Mount Saint Joseph. A 56-percent increase — that's important. It's trying to provide support. It's also important to note that what we've said to health authorities, what we say to people that are responsible for carrying these things out is…. We ask them to make the best decisions for their communities and their facilities to maximize health care benefits for people, to maximize the benefits for patients.

Now, maybe the opposition would like to do something else. Maybe they think it's better to go back to what they had in the 1990s. Certainly, they all supported it then. Maybe they think it's better not to have a plan. Maybe they think it's better not to face up to the challenges we have in health care. Maybe they think we shouldn't invest in physicians. Maybe they think we shouldn't invest in nurses. We sure haven't heard what they think we should do.

We've been investing in emergency wards. We've been investing in capital plans. We've been investing in equipment. We've been investing in MRIs. We've been investing in new dialysis equipment, going across the province. We've been investing in new electronic health, new opportunities for e-health. All of those things are aimed at raising the quality of health care in British Columbia.

Again, the opposition, the critic, the leader are very confused. They're so confused that they don't even know what Health estimates are for, hon. Chair. Health estimates are for the opposition critic to come and deal directly with the minister responsible, with the ministry officials. They can deal with all the details of the questions that are there. There were 16 hours of estimates that were available for them to pursue these things and to discuss them. I believe that that's the way the estimates should be.

Where are we going in health care? Where we're going is capital investments — literally billions of dollars in capital investments over the next number of years — education, training, reaching out with a stable workforce that we're able to work with in partnership to build even better quality health care for British Columbians.

When we started out in the throne speech, we said we had to ask ourselves some questions. Do we believe that in the health care system that sustainability should be another principle for the Canada Health Act?

[1510]

We have to move forward. We've invested literally billions of additional dollars. We're looking forward to continuing to improve the quality of care, the quality of services for people across the province.

That's what improving ambulance service was about. It's what putting defibrillating machines in ambulances was about. It's what increasing training for ambulance attendants was about. It was about working with the B.C. ambulance association to make sure that we've made that work for everybody in the province as a front-line provider of health care.

If you go to the north today, you'll find that they don't have nearly the challenges that they had just six years ago. If you go to Cranbrook today, they'll tell you they have additional specialists and additional physicians.

If you go to just about any hospital, they'll tell you they've got more nurses than they did. We need more still. That's why we're training them. That's why we've created a 62-percent increase in funding for nurse training. That's why we've increased the number of nurses that are in the system.

We've got more to do. We'll keep doing it. We'll work with the health authorities to do it. We'll work with communities to do it, and we'll work with patients to do it. We'll continue to lead the country.

C. James: Well, we're going to continue to make the Premier uncomfortable and ask health care questions, because the public expects the Premier of this province to answer questions on the most important issue facing British Columbians right now. They expect that the Premier would answer questions about health care. I find it extraordinary that the Premier would lecture us to say that we shouldn't be asking questions on health care, one of the key issues to the people of this province and one of the key issues, in fact, on the Premier's own agenda.

[ Page 4913 ]

The Premier headed off to Europe to study health care without the Health Minister, so that would certainly leave the public believing that health care is a key issue the Premier wishes to look at. I find it extraordinary that the Premier would once again lecture us on asking questions of importance to the people of British Columbia — extraordinary.

I also find it incredible that the Premier would say that he hasn't been listening to any ideas from the opposition. Well, he may not have been listening, and the Health Minister may not have been listening, but certainly the communications people for government have been listening, because every time we raise an issue, they solve it.

Whether it's, in fact, emergency room funding, whether it's a doctor in Creston, whether it's funding for Mount Saint Joseph, whether it's long-term care beds reopened after we raised a question — issue after issue after issue we have raised — the Premier and the Health Minister continue to deny that there's a challenge. But miraculously, after the issue is raised, we find that the government starts paying attention to this issue.

I think it's a very sad statement when health care is done to get issues out of the headlines instead of as the right thing to do. My question back to the Premier, very specific: can the Premier assure the House that no other health services will be cut at Mount Saint Joseph as a result of the changed plan in emergency care?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me just say that in terms of the challenges we face with the opposition, they tend to say one thing one day and another the next, depending on what the circumstances are.

In terms of Mount Saint Joseph, what we're doing is working with Providence. The Health Ministry will work with Providence. They will work with the professionals there. They will have a plan that will be in place that will work in the best interests of the people who use that facility. That's what the goal is. That's what we're going to do.

C. James: No answer, once again, as we've seen with almost every specific question we have asked on health care, on issues that matter to people in communities, so I'm going to try again. On behalf of those communities and those patients who are struggling, a question around Kelowna.

[1515]

We have seen, again, code purple at Kelowna General, and when doctors were asked why it was that patients weren't sent to nearby hospitals in Penticton, in Vernon, in Oliver, in Osoyoos, in Summerland or in Princeton, the doctors simply laughed. They said it was impossible because Kelowna General was already the overflow hospital for the region suffering because of cuts in beds by the Liberal government.

Again, my question to the Premier: will he accept that there were decisions made by the Liberal government that impacted the code purples that we're seeing at Kelowna General Hospital?

Hon. G. Campbell: As was pointed out in the House the other day, there was a code purple the other day in the Kelowna hospital. Unfortunately, there was a major vehicle accident. There were three vehicles involved. It was resolved within an hour.

Hon. Chair, I'm glad to engage the Leader of the Opposition with regard to what we've done in health care. We have literally invested millions of dollars in health care in terms of the emergency health facilities we've done. We've invested $7 million in putting together a plan that's brought everyone together. It's been something the government has been working on for some time. We've got $100 million in renovating emergency rooms across the province.

Is there pressure in health care? Yes, there's pressure. The fastest-growing economic region of the province happens to be the Thompson-Okanagan. The Okanagan Valley is a very fast, vibrant, healthy community. People are moving there. We're going to have to have a capital plan that responds to that, and it will take time for that plan to be in place.

But let's be clear. As we look to the future in health care in this government, we are asking people…. We're glad to hear from the opposition. The opposition wants to deal with operational matters down in different hospitals. That's what they did when they were in government. That's why they wasted so much of the taxpayers' dollars. That's why they didn't have a real plan, because they kept on trying to interfere from Victoria.

We're not trying to do that. We're trying to say to health authorities: "Your responsibility is to manage this system." The accountability contracts are there between health authorities and the government — what they're trying to deliver.

We do have some questions to ask, though. What do comprehensive and portable mean to Canadians, given the wide disparity that takes place across this country? What do we mean by reasonable access and medically necessary? Those are questions that we have to ask ourselves. We have to ask ourselves whether it really matters to patients whether services are delivered by a private facility or a public facility if, in fact, the public is paying. Those are issues that we should be asking ourselves. Those are issues that are part of what we should discuss as we move ahead.

Why shouldn't we build our health care system on a foundation of sustainability? I can tell you that in health authorities across this province, they have seen significant increases in their budgets — over 20-percent increases in their budgets. They have seen renewed opportunities for them to manage their budgets within their systems, within their regions of the province. We've seen an increase in improvement of services across British Columbia.

That's what we've asked them to do. That does not mean there are not challenges. I can tell you again. The opposition may turn a blind eye to this, but the fact is we've made real progress in British Columbia in the last six years. We'll continue to make progress, and it would be so much more positive if the opposition could have constructive and positive ways that they

[ Page 4914 ]

may be able to respond to that progress so that we can build on our successes as we move into the future.

C. James: I'm kind of reminded of my days when my children were young. You play hide and seek, and they'd cover their eyes and think it makes them disappear.

Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. Pretending the problem isn't there doesn't make the problem go away. That's what we continue to hear from this government. The only approach that this government is using in health care is the hands-off approach. Blame the health authority, unless the issue hits the headline, and then scramble to try and fix the issue. That's the government's health care approach.

I'm going to continue to ask specific questions in this venue and every other venue, because the people of this province deserve answers. They certainly aren't hearing them today or yesterday or the day before from either the Premier or the Health Minister.

Now I'd like to touch on Kamloops. Again, we've seen direct links from the doctors in Kamloops, who have talked about the bed cuts and the pressures they're seeing in emergency rooms. In fact, we even saw the MLA for that particular area raise concerns.

[1520]

In the area around Kamloops there were 200 residential care beds and 24 percent of long-term care beds cut, and 32 percent of acute care beds gone. That's 15 percent of the acute care beds at the hospital right now that are occupied with seniors because of the cuts that were made.

As I've been trying, in the morning and again this afternoon, to get the Premier to acknowledge the ramifications of the decisions of his government to not build the 5,000 long-term care beds and to cut acute care beds at the same time…. Does the Premier recognize that the problem in Kamloops is directly related to the decisions made by his government?

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, I want to be clear to the Leader of the Opposition. I do think, in fact, these regional questions are appropriate. I think they're appropriate to be asked in Health estimates when we have Health officials here who can help respond to them in detail. In 16 hours those questions were not asked.

Let me be clear about this. Let's talk about Kamloops. Kamloops is actually one of the symbols of NDP failure. Kamloops is a symbol of NDP broken promises. The NDP, when they were seeking office in the early '90s, said that there was going to be a new cancer centre in Kamloops. That was part of their election platform. Within weeks they said: "Oh no, never mind. Don't pay any attention to us; we didn't really mean that."

There's a significant difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. This is what we've been able to do in Kamloops. One hundred residential care beds have opened in Kamloops Seniors Village in September of 2004. An 84-residential-care-bed facility will be open this year in 2006. Seventy-six assisted-living units will be opened at Bedford Manor. As well, 137 residential care beds and ten assisted-living units are planned to be opened in 2008. Six residential care beds at Marjorie Willoughby hospice house opened in February of '05.

Eight residential care beds are planned for the Overlander lodge in 2008. Thirty-two independent housing units in Greenfield Place opened in 2002. Residential care beds are being offered across Kamloops, and we're improving and upgrading those.

On top of that, we invested in the emergency facilities in Kamloops by $28 million. We provided a 44-bed psych unit in Kamloops to benefit the people of that particular thing. There are more ALC beds in Ponderosa Lodge.

The fact is, in Kamloops…. We see it as a major centre for regional activities. We're going to continue to work with the IHA with regard to Kamloops. We're going to continue to work with physicians. This is what I think would be clear if you talk to anyone from Kamloops. They would say that we have made real improvements there.

Now, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition also doesn't want to reflect back on what she said. This is what the Leader of the Opposition has said: "We shouldn't do things exactly the same way." We agree with that. "We could, in fact, provide better services for patients." We agree with that, and we've done that. "There will always be cost pressures and never enough money for health care." That's true.

My question to the Leader of the Opposition is: how would she allocate the additional $3.5 billion that we put into the health services? This is how we allocated them: human resources, more procedures, more equipment, more capital plant, more quality services for the people of British Columbia.

The Leader of the Opposition says: "My answer is a better, more efficient public health care system achieved through innovation." We are recognized by everyone except the opposition for the innovations that have been established in British Columbia, for the progress that has been made from British Columbia. We are asked on an ongoing basis to explain what we're doing in British Columbia so other jurisdictions can pick that up. Whether it's in Pharmacare, whether it's in wait-list services, whether it's in cancer services, we've been asked, and we respond.

I can tell you this. For all of the Leader of the Opposition's comments that we've heard over the last little while, in British Columbia we've got great doctors, we've got great nurses, and we've got health authorities that are working on behalf of the communities they serve. That's why we're number one in the country.

[1525]

C. James: I think that's a new definition of innovation: to actually not keep your promise and not build 5,000 long-term care beds; to close acute care beds; and to leave the health care system in chaos. In fact, that's what we've seen as the direction of the Liberal government. If the Premier calls that innovation, I have a different definition of innovation, I can tell you.

[ Page 4915 ]

I want to talk specifically about Ponderosa Lodge, since the Premier, in fact, raised the issue of Ponderosa Lodge. The lodge was actually closed in the summer of 2004, and within days the hospital in Kamloops reported a significant bed crunch due to the increase of seniors coming to the hospital for health care. That's a direct result of the government's decision to close beds, and it puts the pressure in the hospital, with seniors.

This is a hospital that has had significant challenges with its ER, as I said earlier. They've had to cancel surgeries. They have bed shortages. I've toured that hospital a couple of times and now see the permanent beds in the hallways in that hospital.

The Premier talked this morning, when we were talking in estimates, about the fact that when they closed facilities, seniors went somewhere else. Well, we know exactly where seniors went. Seniors went to hospitals. They went to hallways. They went to closets. They're in hospitals that now are overcapacity — as routine, not as exception.

My question is: does the Premier still believe that when facilities like Ponderosa Lodge were closed, those seniors went somewhere else other than hospitals?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I was pleased to hear that the Leader of the Opposition was going to define for us what innovation was, and I'd like to hear from her what she thinks innovation is.

One of the interesting innovations they might discover in the opposition is to get the facts right. The Ponderosa Lodge never closed completely in Kamloops. It has been used for transition beds. It will continue to be used for transition beds until the transition is complete. But it did not close.

It's interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition go on. She called for a more efficient public health care system. As I said today, what we've been trying to do is provide a continuum of care across the system — palliative care, mental health illness services, addiction services, acute care beds. There's been an increase in the number of beds in the province under health services of 5 percent. We're trying to distribute those appropriately.

We're investing in new facilities in Kamloops, as I just read. I'd be glad to read it out again if the opposition leader would like to hear it: 32 housing units in Greenfield Place in 2002; 100 residential care beds, Kamloops Seniors Village, and 84 residential care beds are going to be opened by 2006; 76 assisted-living units have opened in Bedford Manner.

I'd invite the opposition leader to go and talk with those folks. If they talk with them, they'll find out that we've actually improved the quality of care and the quality of services they receive. That's what we set out to do.

So Ponderosa Lodge has been used for transition services. The fact is that you can't run all health care from Victoria. We saw what happened when the NDP tried to do that. We lost nurses. We lost doctors. We had communities saying they couldn't get specialists. We had communities saying that the NDP government wasn't living up to its commitment.

I can tell you this. When we committed the 44-bed psych ward, we delivered on the 44-bed psych ward. When we committed on telehealth, we delivered on telehealth into Kamloops. When we committed to improve the investments in emergency, we delivered on those investments in emergency.

I think the actual challenge that we face here is that we do have to set goals. We do have to set standards. We do that in Victoria. We have accountability contracts that are signed between the Health Ministry and the health authorities. We audit those contracts. There are times when things don't work the way they're supposed to. We recognize that. We try and remedy that as quickly as we possibly can.

But I do know this. There are more procedures taking place in British Columbia now. There is more access in British Columbia now in the Interior Health Authority, in the Coastal Health Authority and the Vancouver Island Health Authority. There are more patients who are given better care today than there were just five or six years ago. That's a tribute, frankly, to the people in the authorities and in the hospitals and in our health care facilities that are providing services to patients across British Columbia.

C. James: I think it's unfortunate. It's the seniors and the hospitals and the people who provide health care who have been suffering because the government, in fact, didn't follow through on their commitment to build 5,000 long-term care beds.

[1530]

The Premier likes to list the commitments that he followed through on. That's a key commitment that he made and that his government made to the seniors of British Columbia and to the people who work in the health care field, who've had to spend the last five years with the government telling them that everything was fine in health care when they've seen the reality every single day, when they've tried to tell the government the reality every single day, and when they've been completely ignored by this government.

I'm glad the Premier raised the issue of accountability. That's the next issue I want to move on to, but I want to touch on it related to health care for a moment. In fact, what this government has done in their health care plan is move to having unaccountable health authorities who have not involved communities in decisions or in planning and whom the government then uses as an opportunity to blame someone else instead of taking responsibility for their own actions.

We've seen it in the issue, for example, of the Ministry of Children and Families, where the government for years refused to be accountable for the decisions that they made — which caused difficulty for children and families at risk in this province for five years — until we saw Judge Hughes come forward with the report. The government could no longer ignore the fact that they caused the chaos we've seen.

It's exactly the same kind of issue in health care today, where the government refuses to acknowledge that they made the decision not to build the long-term

[ Page 4916 ]

care beds, that they made the decision to close down long-term care facilities, and that they made the decision to close acute care beds, which has caused the chaos that we see today. That's not accountability, and that's certainly not health planning.

Moving on to the issue of accountability. I think this is an important place for us to have a conversation with the Premier and to talk about openness and accountability under this government. We've seen, under this government, the Premier make a number of decisions that have, in fact, decreased accountability and transparency and have promoted secrecy over openness.

I'll just give some examples. The cuts to the Auditor General. The cuts to the Ombudsman. The cuts to the freedom-of-information office. The outright elimination of other independent watchdogs, such as the Human Rights Commission and the Children's Commission. Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, which allowed the government to override municipalities. Exemption of B.C. Ferries from FOI. The government's refusal to debate their pre-election budget. There are many other examples that we'll get into talking about over the next couple of hours.

Of course, as we've seen in this session, the government has attempted to restrict public access to information through changes to the Public Inquiry Act and FOI.

I'm not going to talk about bills that are in front of this House, but I would like to discuss aspects of recent legislation that have decreased transparency and to also canvass the issue of open government a little bit more. Here are just a couple of quotes to start off, since the Premier tends to forget his words from the past, which show the Premier's direction around openness and transparency when he was in opposition.

This is a Premier who said: "When government does its business behind closed doors, people will invariably believe the government has something to hide. Secrecy feeds distrust and dishonesty. Openness builds trust and integrity."

Here's one more quote from the then opposition leader. "A direct link between democracy, open government and freedom of information. The fundamental principle must be this." The then opposition leader said: "Government information belongs to the people, not to government. This means, among other things, that all citizens must have timely, effective and affordable access to the documents which governments make and keep. Governments should facilitate access, not obstruct it."

So given those comments and given many other comments that the Premier has made about open government, about transparent government, I would like to ask the Premier a very simple question. What actions does he believe his government has made that in fact reduce openness and transparency?

[1535]

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm going to start with some of the

preamble to that question. The Leader of the Opposition wonders what this government has done for seniors and what we haven't done. Again, I would point out that we have invested over a billion dollars over the last five years in improving the quality of facilities.

The last thing I had expected when we were elected in 2001 was that the previous government, in spite of its incompetence, in spite of its mismanagement, would have allowed our seniors facilities to deteriorate to the level that they did. The Leader of the Opposition may want to run from that record, but it was her record. She ran on that record, and she said that she accepted it and embraced it and encouraged British Columbians to go forward with that.

We did a different approach. We said we were going to go forward. We were going to provide for the improvements in those facilities. We were going to make sure that people could live in quality care. We'd rehabilitate if necessary. We'd relocate if it was necessary. We'd build new units. We are doing that, and we've been very clear with that.

Beyond that, we are modernizing residential care beds and assisted-living units. There are 2,700 new units that will be in place by December of 2006. We have expanded Independent Living B.C. — 3,500 housing units by December of '06. We have expanded home support programs, which includes daily living, meals and day care. We have reduced average wait times for residential care from 365 days in the 1990s to 90 days.

MSP has been reduced for 290,000 British Columbians. Pharmacare has been reduced for 280,000 British Columbians. Seniors across British Columbia who are on a fixed income know that their income taxes have been dramatically reduced, to zero if they happen to have $15,000 a year. If it's just less than that, they're still the lowest income taxes in Canada that we are providing to seniors.

We will obviously be held to account by the electorate, and we look forward to that. We look forward to a real debate about who has delivered on health care and who did not.

As we move ahead, I think it's also important that we look at the record in terms of accountability of this government. Currently we have one of the strongest freedom-of-information acts in the country. It includes a commission that's independently appointed by an all-party committee. There are more bodies that are included in that act than in any other Canadian jurisdiction. That is an important step in terms of openness, and I'm proud that this government did that.

We've increased the gross budget for the Auditor General by over 30 percent since the year 2000. We have a procurement governance office that's right there under the comptroller general. We've depoliticized the appointment process. There is a Merit Commissioner in place. There is now a new openness for Crown corporations, whether it's B.C. Hydro or B.C. Ferries or ICBC.

We introduced the Lobbyists Registration Act. We are constantly in keeping with the FOI legislation that's been in place. We're proud of those initiatives.

In terms of the Legislature, we expanded our question period to 30 minutes. Much to the opposition's chagrin, we expanded it to 30 minutes.

Specifically to the issue of freedom of information, the only changes that have been made have been posi-

[ Page 4917 ]

tive improvements, including adding approximately 50 public bodies to the act, including the Forest Practices Board and the provincial Agricultural Land Commission. It now covers more public bodies than any jurisdiction in Canada.

We've simplified the process for adding public bodies. We've provided for privacy impact assessments. We've provided and extended privacy protection to include personal information. We've brought together a review by an all-party committee which takes place every six years.

There's greater flexibility for the officer to actually manage his affairs, to say: "This is not a request," or "I will pursue these other requests because they're more important."

I think that if you go across the country, you would have difficulty finding a province that had been more open than the province of British Columbia.

C. James: I find it interesting that some of the areas that the Premier referred to in fact were our suggestions to the Premier, including the 30-minute question period to make government more open and transparent.

Let's look at a specific example that the government put forward. That is

section 9 of the miscellaneous bill that was passed in the House yesterday. This bill was passed, and the government's intent was to change the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Premier….

[1540]

The Chair: Member. Just a reminder that only the administrative action of a department is open to debate so that only matters involving the administrative actions of a department are to be discussed in Committee of Supply. Matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. That has been the practice of this chamber.

C. James: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll continue on, then, to ask the Premier about changes the government has looked at for freedom of information over this past year. Could the Premier explain some of those changes that the government proposed to make this year to freedom of information, and how they make sure that government is more open and transparent?

Hon. G. Campbell: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the estimates for the ministry responsible for freedom of information are yet to be canvassed. I would recommend all of those questions go to that estimates period. Let me just say that the full policy discussions can take place during those estimates if the Leader of the Opposition would like to do that — the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services.

Let me go back. What we have done as a government is expand the reach of information and privacy. It lays out rules for how documents should be returned. We've closely done this in consultation with the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner. We have been very clear that we are open to recommendations from that independent officer of the Legislature. He can report through to a standing committee, and they can make recommendations to the House.

I think the thrust the government has had has been exactly what I outlined before. I think it's important to note that when I did outline it, I said there will always be requests for more. That's good, and that's healthy in a democratic society. We're glad to hear those ideas. They will be properly processed through the minister. I think the policy is to be open and accountable.

When we're recognized by the Auditor General of Canada for the appointment process that's been established by our government, that's good news for British Columbians. When we have an Auditor General who recognizes that we are the only jurisdiction in the country that actually keeps our books in terms of generally accepted accounting principles, that is good news for British Columbians.

We have said quite clearly that we want to inform British Columbians about what's taking place. There are quarterly reports. They see what's taking place. There are public accounts. They see what's taking place. We open up our government to make sure that people do see what's taking place, so they can offer suggestions on how we can move ahead.

Our strategic plan is very clear in terms of our vision and core values. We want to be known as a fiscally responsible jurisdiction. We want to be recognized for the accountability that we hold ourselves to and that citizens can hold us to. We want to be recognized as a government of integrity that deals with citizens openly and directly, and we will continue to pursue that.

The details of the questions the opposition leader is suggesting right now, though, are properly and correctly pursued under the estimates of the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services.

C. James: I'm sorry for ruining the Premier's day by asking health care questions that he didn't want to answer and wanted asked to the Health Minister. Now he doesn't want to answer questions around freedom of information and openness. I'm going to continue asking those questions regardless, because the Premier has stated that one of his goals is to be the most open and transparent government ever. Therefore, it seems reasonable to ask those questions of the Premier directly.

Let's talk about changes that the government has made over the history of their five years. In 2002 the government announced it was cutting the budget of the FOI office by 35 percent for three years running, 2002 to 2005, a decision that had a severe impact on the workings of this office, including the appeal process. Does the Premier think this decision helped openness and transparency?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Leader of the Opposition wants to go back, so let's go back. Let's go back to what her party did — what the NDP did. Let's look back at how her party actually treated the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 4918 ]

[1545]

The fudge-it budget now is known as a case study across the country for misleading citizens. That was the NDP. We brought in the Budget Accountability Act. We have accountability for ministers. We have service plans now. There were never service plans before this government came forward. You can look at a three-year plan for any ministry of this government.

In fact, if the NDP was doing some of its homework occasionally, they could actually use those plans to help any government move forward — to look for good and positive suggestions that could be used to enhance the plans and look ahead. If we look at accountability for ministers, I can tell you right now that if we had ministers in the NDP, they wouldn't be getting any salary whatsoever for the way they mismanaged this government.

As we look ahead in the province of British Columbia and as we look at the strategic plans we have put in place, we have opened up our government in a way that has never been opened up before. In education, for the first time ever, we're providing people with class-size information so they can make their choices. They can see what's taking place in the province. That's open government.

We're going to continue that process. We're going to continue including citizens. Even the Auditor General has said to us that this is a jurisdiction that other jurisdictions should be emulating because of the way we're keeping our books, because of the way we're doing things. We have done an exceptional job. This government has done an exceptional job, as have the public servants, in opening up this process — the ideas of government — to the people of British Columbia so they can share with us in building an even more prosperous future for this province.

C. James: A straightforward question: did the cuts that the Premier made between 2002 and 2005 impact openness and transparency?

Hon. G. Campbell: The fact of the matter is that we inherited a $4.4 billion deficit. We inherited a health care system in disarray. We inherited an education system that was closing parents out of the system, where they actually said to parents: "You're not allowed to volunteer in the school."

What we said, and what we ran on, was that we were going to bring in a balanced budget by our third complete budget. I'm proud to say we were able to do that. As we did that, we opened up government in British Columbia. As we did that, we opened up our books in British Columbia so people knew that there were actually books they could rely on.

You don't get four credit upgrades in the province without hard work and without being open. That is a measure of openness in British Columbia.

When the Auditor General says that we have set the standard that others should follow, that is a measure of openness in British Columbia. That's an important measure that everyone in this province should take pride in.

The Chair: I would like to remind the member that we are debating the estimates of the 2006-2007 budget.

C. James: Continuing on with decisions made by the Premier, which are direct decisions related to the Premier's responsibility — therefore, the Premier's office. These are questions that have to do with openness and accountability. It is a key part, a key platform of this government. Therefore, I would expect these are pretty basic questions that should be answered by the Premier. We didn't get an answer to the last question, so I'm going to try another specific change made by the government to the FOI Act in 2002. It gave cabinet broad discretionary power to designate any work done by committees that include a cabinet minister to be immune from any access.

The Chair: Member, again, we are in the 2006-2007 budget year. The question should be relevant to the budget that's before us.

C. James: Continuing on. Were decisions that the Premier made…?

The Chair: Member, if you could just explain how that is relevant to the estimates at hand today.

C. James: I can. We didn't see an increase in the freedom-of-information budget in this year. That's an issue when you take a look at past history of this government around freedom of information and past history where the budget has been decreased by the government.

You would expect that the government, perhaps, would look at increasing the budget and putting back some of those resources that were taken out — to increase openness and transparency. You would expect, perhaps, the government would take a look at some of the past history issues and make changes this year to increase openness and accountability.

My question to the Premier is: did he think there were any changes that needed to be made to the freedom of information, based on past decisions of his government, which would have improved openness and transparency this year?

[1550]

Hon. G. Campbell: There's no question that the full policy discussion and budget debate is entirely the purpose of the upcoming Labour and Citizens' Services discussions, but as I've said to the Leader of the Opposition earlier, the….

Interjection.

Hon. G. Campbell: Excuse me, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Continue, Mr. Premier.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not going to continue until the member decides that he's going to take his place.

[ Page 4919 ]

The actions this government have taken are very clear. We've increased the budget since 2001-2002. We are going to continue to work with the Information and Privacy Commissioner. As we do that, I am sure we will continue to build on our record of being the most open and accountable government in Canada.

C. James: My question: did the Premier ever take a look at including some of the key bodies that they've excluded over the last number of years?

I'll start one at a time. B.C. Ferries. Did the Premier ever consider, this year, including B.C. Ferries in freedom of information?

Hon. G. Campbell: We decided to follow the same course that was plotted earlier with regard to B.C. Ferries. It is an independent agency. It relies on private sector resources.

B.C. Ferries, we believe, is more accountable and more open now than it has ever been before. There is a Ferry commissioner. There is an independent board. There are strict public disclosure requirements. There's an independent audit. There's a requirement for public hearings for B.C. Ferries up and down the coast.

Transport Canada regulates all of the safety requirements. Frankly, Transport Canada regulates B.C. Ferries, who are subject to federal FOI legislation. So we made the decision that B.C. Ferries would be treated very similarly to B.C. Rail. We believe it is, frankly, a more open and more public process than it has ever been in the history of the organization.

C. James: Did the Premier ever consider having VANOC subject to FOI?

Hon. G. Campbell: VANOC is not a provincial organization. Again, I think it's important for the opposition to spend some time to see how these structures are created.

VANOC is a partnership between the Canadian Olympic Committee, the federal government, the provincial government, the city of Vancouver and the city of Whistler. Clearly, once again, VANOC is independently audited. Those records are available for people. Since it is not a member of British Columbia's entity, it is not included.

C. James: Another specific example. I want to ask the Premier whether, this year, he has considered making any changes to…. B.C. is the only known jurisdiction in Canada where the names of individual requesters are actually provided to communications aides for political purposes as a matter of routine.

This is a new policy that was implemented by the government where so-called troublesome requesters are identified by name at the top of the documents provided to ministers. The responses to these requesters — the media, the opposition, stakeholder groups — are routinely delayed by this government. This practice, in fact, led to an investigation by the commissioner. I'd like the Premier to please explain to us how this policy of his government actually fits with the views about being open and transparent?

Hon. G. Campbell: It's interesting, again, for me that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't, I guess, recognize what the common practice has been, including under the previous NDP government. What we use today with regard to disclosures is the same practice that was used previously. It's no different today than it was before. It's not a practice that we intend to use or that we do use regularly.

[1555]

In fact, under

section 33 of the act, confirmed in the commissioner's ruling of 1996, individuals representing public bodies may have their names shared with government staff when appropriate. The practice is not used very regularly. It is not a common practice in government, and it is not a violation of freedom-of-information and privacy protection.

C. James: If the practice is not used, if the Premier doesn't feel it's important, will the Premier agree, then, that he's going to withdraw that act and practice?

Hon. G. Campbell: There is always an opportunity for recommendations to come forward from the opposition, either to the standing committee in the House or to the minister responsible. But again, let's be clear. These are initiatives that have been undertaken. It's part of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The opposition just doesn't want to hear that in British Columbia we are more open than virtually any other jurisdiction in country. That's the fact; that's the case. We are more accountable than any other. We have a very good and positive working relationship with the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner. We're going to continue to build on that.

We're going to continue to take recommendations, and as we can improve the act, as we move forward, we'll do it. But we'll do it deliberately. We'll do it in consultation with all members of the House, as we've done in the past. As we do that, we'll continue to make significant progress and continue to lead the country.

C. James: In fact, recommendations had been made, including by the government's own committee, that had been completely ignored by this government. It's quite reasonable to actually ask these questions to the Premier, since he has ignored recommendations by his own committee, including ones as recently as 2004.

Let's take a look at the current practice. The Premier talks about being open and transparent. The Premier talks about the fact that they have not made changes that have had any impact on the current practice. Well, if we take a look at the current practice around FOI, it's very clear that the government never meets the 30-day time line that it's supposed to be meeting — mandated under law, in fact, to meet — and routinely comes back months and months and months later.

[ Page 4920 ]

We see fees charged for information that's in the public interest that are impossible for individuals, certainly, and in fact many groups and organizations to be able to meet. The other practice we see routinely is that documents are heavily severed. For example, the recent FOI on child death reviews came back with over half of its pages completely blank.

What we also see is that the Premier's office is especially secretive when it comes to responding to routine requests that come through. I'll give a specific example here in the last short while. A request came forward for question period briefing notes that came back to us, as opposition, with completely blank documents, with simply the title at the top of the document that said "Facts about the B.C. Economy and Five Great Goals," with the five great goals completely blanked out.

Now, I don't know if the Premier thinks that that's secret information, but if he hasn't paid attention, it was in his throne speech. It's in every government document that's out there. It's on his website. But the Premier's office found the time, through freedom of information, to actually blank out those sections when the information came back. How does that fit with the Premier's example of openness and transparency?

Hon. G. Campbell: All the practices in the Premier's office are within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If the opposition has a complaint about that or the information, they are totally able to go to the Privacy Commissioner and discuss that with the Privacy Commissioner, and he would make a ruling. What we've done as a government is strengthened that act, and we will continue to look for ways that we can strengthen it on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

C. James: I find it, again, extraordinary. It's a word I've used a lot in the last day with the kind of lack of responses we've received from the Premier on issues that he says are of critical importance to him, his leadership and his government. It shows what little regard he has for the importance of these issues.

[1600]

We see the kind of effort that the Premier's office has gone through on very small, what could be called unimportant, issues that have been requested from FOI, but let's take a look at very important issues that have also been requested. I think it's important. If the Premier's office would go that far to sever documents such as five great goals and economic indicators for British Columbia, what are they going to do with critical information that people are actually requesting?

The official opposition has also requested information on issues such as child death reviews, the ALR, the RAV line, Fair Pharmacare, the child care action plan. It's a long list, and at every turn we get exactly the same response: delays, blank documents, enormous fees or outright refusals to even respond. Is it the Premier's concern that his government and his office practices are actually increasing the public's view that the government has something to hide?

Hon. G. Campbell: We don't actually make any distinction between small issues and large issues that are raised in the Premier's office with regard to freedom-of-information and privacy requests. As I say to the Leader of the Opposition…. She's quick to cast aspersions. There's a process in place. If she feels that we're not carrying out our activities in a way that is in keeping with the act, then she should appeal those activities to the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner.

All I can tell the Leader of the Opposition, again, is that we are completely compliant. The office does the best it can to respond in a timely fashion. It does do its due diligence, as it should do and as I would expect any ministry and any office in government to do with regard to freedom of information and privacy protection. The reason we have an independent officer of the Legislature who can sit and pass judgment on these things is so that if there are questions, they can be asked of an independent body. I think it's important for us to recognize that.

There will be estimates for Labour and Citizens' Services. This will be able to be canvassed completely at that time, and I would hope that the opposition critic will do just that.

C. James: While the Premier may be able to dismiss requests coming from the opposition and the press, it is other groups, as well, who are expressing concern. Hopefully, the Premier wouldn't ignore the kinds of concerns of other groups if he's writing the rest of us off.

If you take a look at the request that came in from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee…. They filed an information request regarding the government's new policy of putting resorts and lodges in B.C. parks. Some 2,400 pages of documents relative to the new policy of putting lodges in parks were identified, but after months of delay, the government flouted its own law and simply refused to release the information. The government was then ordered to release the documents by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

It's a complete contradiction of what we just heard from the Premier. This was the government that was ordered by the freedom-of-information commissioner to actually release this information after they refused. On the day the government was ordered to release the information, the Liberals provided just 19 of those 2,400 pages — 19 pages of heavily censored e-mails and an unrelated report. I would like to ask the Premier if he thinks denying access to information on the government's park lodge strategy is an open and accountable way for his government to behave.

Hon. G. Campbell: I don't know the specifics of this case. I know there was one case where there was confusion between whether the freedom-of-information request should be made to the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. We tried to respond to that.

[ Page 4921 ]

I would just say to the Leader of the Opposition: I rest my case with regard to how the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is established. Evidently, the organization didn't like the response. They appealed it to the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner, and we responded as the Information and Privacy Commissioner had directed. That's exactly what the legislation encourages people to do if they don't feel they've been treated properly.

[1605]

C. James: The Premier, as he has done with most of the questions, is again ignoring the issue and the actual questions. A very specific question, which is around openness and transparency and the direction that his government has taken over the last year that has made it difficult for people to be able to access information: does the Premier think it's reasonable that the freedom-of-information commissioner has to order the government to release that information, rather than the government releasing it itself? Does that not contradict the statements the Premier has made about openness and transparency being critical for government?

Hon. G. Campbell: What I will say to the Leader of the Opposition is: this government acts fully in compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is there for two things. There is a balance. There's freedom of information, and there's privacy protection. It requires us to be diligent as we operate on requests that come to my office — or to any ministry, for that matter. When they're going to other ministries, if there are specific examples, then I would encourage the opposition critic to raise them with regard to Labour and Citizens' Services.

Again, there are responsibilities on both sides of this requirement. It's not just a question of sort of throwing out a net and hoping that you can get something. As the freedom-of-information commissioner himself will say, a focused request is a much easier request to respond to. It's the same for us; it's the same for others.

I would hope that we will continue…. We will continue; I won't hope that. We will continue to provide information to people in keeping with and compliant with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That is our responsibility, and we will live up to that responsibility.

C. James: I find it sad that the Premier ignores advice from his own committee and advice from the independent officers who are there to provide advice to government about how to increase openness and transparency. Completely ignored by the Premier, ignored by government, is an opportunity to make the government more open and transparent.

I want to use another example for the Premier, in fact, of recommendations that have been ignored by government. The Chief Electoral Officer delivered his post-election report to the Legislature in April, entitled Recommendations for Legislative Change, March 2006 . He talks about the fact that in 1995, when the Election Act was changed, B.C. was a leader in Canada. But since then B.C. has been left behind, and he is calling for a review of election finance rules.

I'd like to quote from the electoral officer: "It may be appropriate to review all current election financing provisions in light of the national trends and shifting public expectations and social attitudes." I'd like to ask the Premier if he agrees with the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer that our election finance rules could be improved.

Hon. G. Campbell: My understanding is that the Chief Electoral Officer has tabled 62 recommendations for improvements to the Election Act. Clearly, those will all be considered by government. I think the Chief Electoral Officer…. I don't think this; I know the Chief Electoral Officer was very clear that there are some ramifications from the setting of an election date that require consideration by government. We will certainly take those into consideration.

It is important, I think, also, for us to make sure that we are doing everything we can to increase participation of British Columbians in the electoral process as we move ahead. We've watched as there's been a reduction in the turnout of people at elections. As we announced in the throne speech, we'd like to find ways together that we can increase those opportunities.

I think that the report has been placed as it should have been. We have a referendum that will be taking place on May 12, 2009, with regard to the STV system and whether people want that to go forward or not. There have been some strong recommendations in the report, and we look forward to reviewing them in the months ahead. Certainly, the decisions of government will be made prior to the next election.

C. James: I think there are a number of specifics within that report that the Premier and government could actually look at immediately to try and improve voter turnout, to try and improve the support for our political process and our democratic process, which would be a plus for all of us, because when people engage in the political process, it makes democracy stronger.

[1610]

Let's take a look at some of the examples which should be influencing B.C. that were raised by the electoral officer. He talks about trends across the country. He talks about bans on union and corporate donations — in Quebec in 1978, in Manitoba in 2001, and at the federal level most recently. They're different political groups, different governments, looking at some trends.

Manitoba and the federal government both have limits on third-party spending. There are limits on individual donations in Manitoba and federally. The federal government is bringing these in. The federal law passed by the Chrétien government in 2004 allowed $1,000 corporate donations to associations, and the new

[ Page 4922 ]

accountability act by the new federal government, in fact, will eliminate those as well.

Finally, we see the federal government, as I mentioned, banning union and corporate donations altogether. The Premier's position so far has been that he does not support a ban on union and corporate donations. My question to the Premier is: in light of those trends, in light of the recommendations by the Chief Electoral Officer, is it still the Premier's position?

Hon. G. Campbell: My position has not changed. I've been very clear. The calls that I've heard from British Columbians are not that we use their tax dollars to support political parties. I think there have been some significant challenges in terms of third-party advertisements both before and during an election, and that's something, certainly, that we would be willing to look at. I think that it's an important part of the legislative process.

There are other disadvantages that take place. Small parties get left behind. It's fine for us to feel in the House like we'll be fine with the public funding program that is in place, but it doesn't allow for innovation in the political process.

I think that third-party spending is important and that it should be reviewed on a regular basis. Those are things that we're going to look at. As I've said, we think these are significant issues. I would not necessarily follow the electoral practices of Quebec or Manitoba. Certainly, we'll look and see how those are working and see what we can learn from them.

I think it should be very clear that as a government we do not believe that taxpayers should be funding political parties. We think the people of British Columbia, the organizations of the province, should be totally allowed to do that. They should fully disclose what they're doing and how they're doing that. We think that's important.

I think it's important for us, over the long term, to look at how we can improve the system. We may be able to learn from other jurisdictions; we'll look at that. As I said, there are 62 separate recommendations that have been brought forward by the Chief Electoral Officer. We will look at those recommendations and act in a timely fashion so that they're in place prior to the 2009 election — should those changes be required.

C. James: Just so we're clear: will the Premier include a discussion around banning union and corporate donations as part of that discussion?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure there will be a public discussion that will take place with regard to this. As I've said, the government will look at the 62 recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer. We will consider those and take any representations we may have from the public to hear how they feel that we may be able to improve the elections law in British Columbia — from the opposition and from other parties as well.

C. James: In fact, there are different processes used across the country when it comes to banning union and corporate donations — differences in provinces, differences with the federal government. Some use public funding; some don't. In fact, it is an issue that I believe should be on the table, and I think it's important for people to know the Premier's views. The Premier's been very clear, Madam Chair, that he does not support public funding of elections. My question to the Premier is: does he support a ban on union and corporate donations?

Hon. G. Campbell: I believe that banning donations actually undermines the principle of including people in the public process. I believe that anyone who donates should actually have to disclose that contribution. The real question here is…. The Leader of the Opposition suggests that we should somehow publicly fund political parties. The issue for me is: where would she take those dollars from?

I don't hear people calling for the public funding of political parties. There are clearly some people who have different ideas on how we may be able to reform this. I'm glad to hear from any of them. The Chief Electoral Officer's report is available for people to peruse. If they agree with it, they should let the government know. If they disagree with it, they should let the government know. If they have other ideas on how we can improve on those things, they should let the government know.

[1615]

We, as government, will make decisions on that. If it's required to make legislative changes, we will bring them to this House. There will be a full and open debate, if those legislative changes are required, and we'll hear different positions.

I recognize that the Leader of the Opposition has said this is her position. I respect that. I think we have a different position on this side of the House, but we're glad to hear from the public on these issues.

C. James: Again, through to the Premier, what will be the time lines for that review process? Is he going to actually ask the Chief Electoral Officer to review election spending, financing, the time for third-party spending and limits on third-party spending? If so, when? What will the time lines be for that?

Hon. G. Campbell: Over the next number of months we'll have a chance to review the 62 recommendations that are before government. When we decide what we're going to do with those recommendations, we will inform the public of what's taking place, and we'll look at engaging people in discussion.

In the meantime, it's not only government that can invite people to be part of a discussion. I welcome the opposition to do that, and I welcome community groups across the province to think about that and to talk about how they think they can improve not just participation in the electoral system but how we may fund it. All of those issues are open. Clearly, we would have to make sure that those decisions are made in time for the next election in 2009. If there are changes to be made, I'm sure they'll be made well prior to 2009.

[ Page 4923 ]

C. James: The reason we're raising this is because, in fact, the opposition has talked to the public and has talked to communities. They have made it very clear that they believe it's important to bring forward the issue of campaign financing, third-party limits, the time that people will be allowed to spend during an election campaign and what that election campaign time period looks like.

The introduction of fixed election dates, as we know, Madam Chair, has made it a very different kind of election campaign. We believe you should actually look at expanding the time period that people have to report election spending, because of the election cycle with fixed election dates. It hasn't been reviewed since 1995.

I appreciate that the Premier thinks that people will get involved in this discussion, but I think they have a right to know what the time lines will be for the Premier. Has he committed? Did we hear him today commit to actually doing a process before the next election to review election financing, to review the time periods for election, third-party financing and what that looks like?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can candidly say that I have received no recommendations from any organization other than the Leader of the Opposition with regard to this. The Chief Electoral Officer has just submitted his report. The 62 recommendations will be reviewed by government. I welcome people's comments on it, and as I've said, if there are changes to be made, those changes will be made in plenty of time for the 2009 election. If we decide that there are changes to be made, we will make those changes in consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure they're in time for the 2009 election.

I think that's what people would expect us to do — to act deliberately and thoughtfully on this. That's what we intend to do. I recognize the opposition leader's position and her party's position. They are in a position where, if they feel there should be no donations, they could say no to the donations that they're receiving. If they have donations that they feel they shouldn't be taking, they can turn their backs on them and say: "No, we won't take them, thank you very much." Our party does that now. We have specific donations that we will not accept, and we say: "We won't take them." The opposition may do that as well.

C. James: I will turn the chair over to my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, who is the critic for Intergovernmental Relations, to ask the Premier some questions around the relationship with the federal government.

Before I do, I just want to make some remarks about what the last number of hours has pointed out to British Columbians. I think it's very important that people recognize that the issues we have raised over the last six or seven hours with the Premier — the issues of openness and accountability and of health care, issues that are critically important to British Columbians — are issues that we heard not wanting to be asked and that we heard the Premier trying to avoid having questions about. When we did get an opportunity to ask questions, we received very few answers.

[1620]

I think it's pointed out a real lack of regard for the process, a real lack of regard for the questions and a real lack of regard for issues that matter to people in this province. These are critically important issues to the people of British Columbia — issues that matter to them. I think that once again we've seen very few answers and very little respect for those issues.

I will turn over the chair to my colleague from Maple Ridge to ask some questions around Intergovernmental Relations.

M. Sather: Concerns with coalmining proposals in the Flathead region of British Columbia have surfaced. The Flathead Basin Commission is involved, and groups like the Flathead Coalition have expressed concerns about the provincial government's approach to managing this area. The secretary of the coalition said that the province is "taking a shotgun approach to industrializing one of the wildest places in North America."

There are a number of coalmining proposals in the Flathead, as well as gold and oil and gas exploration. Cline Mining Corp. is planning the Lodgepole Coal Mine. The Premier met with Governor Schweitzer of Montana regarding this issue. B.C. and Montana have agreed that Montana will participate in the environmental assessment process for Lodgepole.

The minister of intergovernmental affairs has said that B.C. has the necessary data, but Montana has expressed doubts and is suggesting more study will be needed, costing $10 million to $12 million. Senator Baucus of Montana is already seeking federal dollars, and the U.S. National Park Service has committed $100,000.

Cline Mining says the permitting process is underway, and they don't see Montana's participation slowing it down. I want to ask the Premier: what is the status of the permitting process?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to try and find the exact status of that proposal at this point, but maybe I can just take the member through some of this process that we've been undertaking.

We have been actively engaged with Montana on issues like environmental cooperation and energy. I met with the Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, in September of '05. I've asked the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations to work with him. The real issue that they raised was the whole question of resource development and environmental management of the transboundary Flathead watershed.

I followed up with a letter in February of '06 inviting Montana to participate in environmental assessment. Frankly, I wanted them to see, as they have recognized, that British Columbia's environmental assessment process is a very thorough and comprehensive one — the environmental assessment review of the proposed Lodgepole Coal Mine and a joint comprehensive review of existing environmental data.

[ Page 4924 ]

On April 10 of this year the minister of state communicated directly with the Governor's office. He invited Montana representatives to come to British Columbia. The purpose of that meeting was to finalize an action plan on an MOU which was signed in 2003. Montana has responded positively to our letters. Their representatives are participating actively in the environmental assessment. It is very clear to us that it is an important matter for us to consider as we move ahead — in British Columbia as well as in Montana, as well as the cross-border impacts.

The potential impact of the proposed requirements that we have for passports and tourism is another thing that we've been talking about with Montana. We're both participating in PNWER.

The status of the permit…. Certainly, you can go to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, but I will try and obtain that answer for you as quickly as possible.

[1625]

M. Sather: Montana has the option of going to the International Joint Commission if they are dissatisfied with the process. I wanted to ask the Premier: what's his sense of how long the two parties, British Columbia and Montana, have in current negotiations before Montana would be likely to seek the actions of the International Joint Commission?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'll tell the member opposite that since I had a chance to meet with the Governor, the minister of state has been working with the Governor's office. Although they may want to go to the International Joint Commissio