2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th 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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 23

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Equality for women in B.C.

J. MacPhail

Equality for women

S. Brice

Equality for women in B.C.

S. Orr

Oral Questions

Government support for role of public servants

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Prevention of violence against women

J. Kwan

Hon. L. Stephens

Investment in technology and film industries in Burnaby

H. Bloy

Hon. R. Thorpe

Management of heritage sites

J. Wilson

Hon. G. Abbott

Tabling Documents

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Plant

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Campbell

Estimates: Ministry of Health Planning (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Hawkins

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management

(continued)

Hon. S. Hagen

J. Kwan

Estimates: Ministry of Skills Development and Labour

Hon. G. Bruce

Estimates: Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise

Hon. R. Thorpe

R. Lee

S. Orr

H. Bloy

[ Page 1627 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Campbell: Today I'm delighted to introduce to the assembly two officials

from Eastern Cape province in South Africa who are here for a two-week study

visit to British Columbia. Mr. Silumko Ncume is the director of the cabinet

secretariat in the office of the Premier. Mr. Mlungisi Ncame is the deputy

director of intergovernmental relations and head of protocol. He is also in the

Premier's office.

As the

Legislature may know, in 1996 Eastern Cape province and British Columbia signed

an agreement on cooperation in governance. This partnership has been an

enriching experience for both provinces. It's been to our mutual benefit.

I want to

say that both Silu and Mlu are here to study central executive management

functions and to share experiences in innovative solutions; positive,

constructive public policy creation; and programs with their counterparts in

British Columbia. I am very pleased they're here with us in B.C. and here with

us in the Legislature. They may be interested to know that we're dealing with

the Premier's estimates later today. We may get an opportunity to hear even more

about this.

[1405]

I can tell

you this: we benefit from this relationship. It's one I think we can take pride

in. I want to make sure the House knows of their attendance, and I hope everyone

will make them welcome.

Hon. S.

Santori: In the members' gallery we have a very special visitor from Italy.

With us today is Giorgio Visetti, the newly appointed consul general at

Vancouver, who is making his first official visit to Victoria.

[Greetings,

good luck and welcome to the beautiful province of British Columbia.]

[Translation

from Italian provided by Hon. S. Santori.]

Please join

me in giving him a warm welcome to this House.

Locke: In the gallery today is Mr. Dave Crown. He is the president of the

B.C. Liquor Licensee and Retailers Association. He's been visiting some of the

members today. Would the House please make him welcome.

Lekstrom: It is my privilege today to welcome two of my constituents from

Peace River South. With us is a long-term mayor of the district of Chetwynd. His

Worship Mayor Charlie Lasser has put greater than 40 years into public life, and

he has been a great asset to us in the north with his knowledge and experience.

Along with Mayor Lasser is the city administrator of Chetwynd, Mr. Mike

Redfearn. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 70 grade 5 students from the

Surrey Christian Middle School in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead; their

teachers Ms. Bell, Ms. Van Esch and Mrs. Antonides; as well as 22 parent

volunteers visiting the House today. Would the House please make them very

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) EQUALITY FOR WOMEN IN B.C.

MacPhail: Tomorrow millions of people worldwide will be observing the

ninety-first International Women's Day. While women have made great strides in

the past 91 years, significant obstacles to women's equality persist today. As

we observe International Women's Day in B.C., it's fitting to reflect upon the

current status of women in our province.

Recent

comments and actions by the provincial government indicate a disturbing

ignorance of the challenges faced by women in B.C. The Minister for Women's

Equality thinks that her job is unnecessary, and she mistakenly believes that a

single woman and a single man have exactly the same opportunities with the same

education.

Information

provided by StatsCan completely counters this view. The majority of employed

women continue to work in occupations in which women have traditionally been

concentrated. Women continue to account for only one in five professional

positions in the natural sciences, mathematics and engineering. Even when

employed, women are still largely responsible for looking after their homes and

families. The average earnings of women are still substantially lower than those

of men.

Of women

aged 65 and older, 24 percent have incomes below the StatsCan low-income cutoff.

Violence against women continues to be a pressing problem.

The

minister attributes many of these gender inequities to women's choices rather

than to the systemic discrimination faced by women in society. This is from a

minister whose government has cancelled universal child care; eliminated before-

and after-school care programs; cut funding to single-parent families by 26

percent; cut family law funding, a service that single moms rely on; reduced the

number of rape crisis counsellors; cut funding to women's centres; and

eliminated pay equity legislation.

[1410]

I'm afraid

that rather than celebrating advances made by women in B.C., this International

Women's Day will be a day to lament this government's efforts to reverse the

hard-earned gains women have made during the past 91 years.

[ Page 1628 ]

I implore

this government to reflect upon its policies and stop their campaign to bring in

a new era of gender inequality to B.C.

EQUALITY FOR WOMEN

Brice: I, too, rise today to recognize and celebrate International Women's

Day. I would like to focus on the international aspect of that, because the

precious rights that many of us take for granted are not enjoyed universally. We

need only to look beyond our borders to see that women and young girls still

live in often perilous situations.

Individual

human rights are precious and need to be protected. Twenty-five years ago the

United Nations invited countries around the world to celebrate the rights of

women. We are proud of the strides that have been made, but at the same time we

recognize that more work must be done in British Columbia and around the world.

One of the themes of 2002 is recognizing the crucial role that women play in

seeking social justice on the local, regional, national and international

scenes.

Several

months ago I had the honour of meeting with a delegation of female Ethiopian

politicians who came to Canada and B.C. to speak to us about their struggles for

equality and the challenges they face in their communities. I was struck by the

fact that Ethiopian women had only a 29 percent literacy rate, far behind that

of their male counterparts. I think most people would agree that literacy is

fundamental in achieving knowledge and, thereby, equality.

This is a

poignant example of the lack of opportunities for women to achieve social and

economic equality. In recognition of International Women's Day, I want to

acknowledge the work of the Minister of State for Women's Equality and her

advocacy for the women of British Columbia. As well, I am confident the minister

will use every opportunity, including the bully pulpit potential of her office,

to advance the issues for girls and women internationally.

EQUALITY FOR WOMEN IN B.C.

S. Orr:

It is with great pride as a woman that I rise today and speak to this House

about International Women's Day. Twenty-five years tomorrow will mark the

anniversary of the United Nations' first call for countries to recognize the

rights and contributions of women in our societies. International Women's Day is

a day when women — regardless of nationality, ethnicity, socioeconomic or

political backgrounds — celebrate the efforts that they have made to end

inequality.

True

equality is still not a reality, but British Columbians continue to make

tremendous strides towards achieving our goal. I think it is important for

everyone to take a moment and reflect about the positive role women have had in

your own lives. Think about how they have influenced, helped, protected and

nurtured you. Perhaps it was your mother, a teacher, a mentor or a colleague. I

am sure everyone in this House can think about a woman, or several women, who

had a positive impact on their lives.

This is

what International Women's Day is about: acknowledging the women in our lives,

in our local communities and throughout the world who have contributed to the

elimination of gender inequality.

I am

committed to the struggle of eliminating inequality, and I know all my

colleagues support me in this task. The Minister of State for Women's Equality

has focused resources to provide services for vulnerable women most at risk. The

ministry has protected funding for transition houses and safe homes so that

women who are desperately fighting for their own security have somewhere safe to

go. The ministry has protected funding for counselling abused women, so they can

get the help they need so that they will have the opportunity to take back their

lives and start to fulfil them once again. Funding for second-stage housing and

for children who have witnessed abuse has also been protected.

These are

very essential priorities, services for women and their children. I ask all

women to join me in celebrating International Women's Day and to commit to

continuing the struggle for achieving true gender equality in British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

ROLE OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

MacPhail: Just last year the Minister of Finance had this to say about

public servants who put their duty to the B.C. people first. He said public

servants are "faced with an amazing, difficult choice. Do they do as they

are ordered? Do those civil servants do as they are ordered, despite what their

conscience tells them? Or do they tell the truth to the people to whom they

really owe their loyalty, the people of British Columbia?"

The

minister then said: "I take great pride in the fact that there are still

civil servants in British Columbia who put the people ahead" of the

government.

Now

ministers throughout his government are branding these same public servants as

thieves who ought to be sought out and punished.

[1415]

Will the

Minister of Finance please tell the House the extent of the investigation

currently underway and tell us why what was good for him and his government,

then in opposition, is now the subject of this intensive investigation?

Hon. G.

Collins: Actually, I'm not — nor have I been — briefed in any detail on

the review that's being done by the risk management branch. My understanding,

though, is that it's a process that is longstanding. It's the role of the

Ministry of Finance to protect the

[ Page 1629 ]

documents that surround budget. They're doing that. They did that under the

previous government. I know they did that under the previous Minister of

Finance, when she was minister, as well. What is happening today is a standard

process.

I do think,

though, that there's a big difference between somebody taking internal documents

to government that are budget documents, which are there and are intended to be

secure — somebody going in and removing those documents and putting them

forward because they don't like the public policy — versus what I said in the

quotes that the member raised in referring to a blatant deception attempt by the

government of the day to mislead the public about the budget and the finances of

this province and to mislead the public, prior to the last election, about the

state of the Crown corporations in British Columbia.

I happen to

know — because I've learned over the last number of months — the depths to

which the deception was put forward by the previous government on the people of

this province about the financial state of this province. I think many ministers

of the Crown were involved in that deception.

MacPhail: I can only assume that the Minister of Finance doesn't know what's

going on in his own government. Here's exactly what's happening. The Finance

minister was assisted in his budget preparations last fall by hearings by the

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Among the

submissions heard by the committee was one from a group of information

technology workers in the Ministry of Human Resources. This submission so

impressed the member for Chilliwack-Kent that he attempted to arrange a meeting

with the Minister of Human Resources. The meeting never took place.

frustration, the public servant sent an e-mail to the Premier expressing his

concerns that the government's actions will only add to its cost. For this, he's

been sent home. He's been disciplined for daring to suggest a better, more

cost-effective way of doing the government's work, daring to bring this idea to

the attention of the Premier — sent home, disciplined.

To the

Premier: is this draconian oppression of constructive ideas from within the

government another feature of the new era for the public service that he

promised before the election, or is it another broken promise?

Hon. G.

Collins: I'd be glad to hear the information that the member has. I'm sure

it comes from the union. I'd be glad to receive it. I'm not aware of this, nor

am I aware of the offer that's out there or what the issue is. I'm perfectly

glad to hear the submission.

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Collins: Mr. Speaker, I'm perfectly glad to undertake to find out what the

issue is. I'm not aware of it. I certainly played no role in sending anybody

home. This government is always very happy to hear from all British Columbians

about their suggestions. We hear on a daily basis — I know I hear it on a

daily basis; I know my colleagues do as well — suggestions people have to run

the province of British Columbia better. Heaven knows, it hasn't been run very

well for the last decade.

PREVENTION OF

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

J. Kwan:

Tomorrow is International Women's Day. In British Columbia more than 13

women and girls are sexually assaulted every day. In Canada every week at least

one woman is murdered by her boyfriend or spouse. In almost half of all violent

relationships a weapon is used. This dramatically increases the extent of

injuries sustained by these victims.

On March 4

the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine presented a member's statement. In this

statement he callously concluded that the December 6 massacre, the massacre of

14 women at L'École Polytechnique in Montreal, proved that it's not guns that

kill people; it's people.

[1420]

The

Minister for Women's Equality did not stand up to challenge her colleague on

this sadly ill-informed portrayal of the reality of violence that women face

every day. Does this mean that the minister and this government as a whole

endorse the statement presented by the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I'm sure that both members opposite have been in this House long

enough to know what the rules are. The rules of private members' statements are

the rules of private members' statements.

What this

government is doing to protect women against violence is clear. We've laid it

out quite clearly in the throne speech. The service plans for this ministry are

on the Web. We have protected and maintained the funding for transition houses,

safe homes and second-stage housing. We have protected the funding for the

counselling programs for women and the counselling programs for children who

have witnessed abuse. We're also developing a strategic plan for the province in

regards to protecting women — all the women in this province.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

Is the minister too afraid to challenge her own caucus colleague? And if she is

too afraid, how can she effectively ensure that women's issues are at the

forefront of this government's agenda? How can the minister represent the women

of this province, who rely upon her to be an advocate for women's issues, if

she's unwilling to acknowledge the reality of violence against women —

including the connection between violence and access to firearms?

[ Page 1630 ]

Hon. L.

Stephens: I want to assure the members opposite that every single government

member in this House is supportive of and working hard to make sure that

violence against women comes to an end.

To the

members opposite, I'd like to know…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. L.

Stephens: …what they did when they were in power. I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. L.

Stephens: …it was nothing, including this particular member…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. L.

Stephens: …who was at one time the Minister of Women's Equality and did

absolutely nothing for the women in this province.

INVESTMENT IN TECHNOLOGY

AND FILM INDUSTRIES IN BURNABY

H. Bloy:

It's an honour today to submit a public written question from Sonja Sanguinetti,

president of the Burnaby Board of Trade. Her question is to the Minister of

Competition, Science and Enterprise. "Given that the city of Burnaby is now

home to seven of the ten largest high-tech firms in B.C. and is home to over

one-half of the studio space available to the movie and television industry in

British Columbia, what is the government doing to build on these successes and

attract even more investment to Burnaby in these growing sectors?"

Hon. R.

Thorpe: First of all, I'd like to thank the member from Burnaby for the

question. With respect to the high-tech, film, television and new media sector,

we were told before we were government that the number one hurdle for growth for

those industries was the uncompetitive, punitive personal tax rates that the

former government had put in place.

What have

we done as a government? On the first day of forming government, we reduced

personal taxes by 25 percent. On January 1 — and some of the members of the

opposition over there may laugh….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

[1425]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know the opposition doesn't care about

working families making $60,000 or less in British Columbia, but our government

now has the lowest tax rate of any jurisdiction in Canada for those workers.

addition, we have lowered the business tax rate to 13.5 percent. We are now

competitive. On September 1 the corporate capital tax is eliminated. For small

business we've also increased the tax exemption threshold from $200,000 to

$300,000. Our government is committed to working with this sector to make it the

best in the world.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Burquitlam has a supplementary question.

H. Bloy:

Burnaby is the home to Inex Pharmaceuticals Corp., a biotech company involved in

the development of treatments for cancer.

Can the

Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell us what steps the

government is taking to address the needs of the biotech industry in British

Columbia?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Recently I met with the biotech sector. They have advised us that

education and a skilled workforce are the number one priorities for their

sector.

Our

government is committed to and has initiated a $45 million program with the

private sector to put into place 20 additional research chairs in post-secondary

institutions in British Columbia.

We're also

doubling the number of post-secondary grads in computer science, electrical

engineering and computer engineering.

Financing

is also a critical, critical component of building the biotech industry in

British Columbia. In the coming months we'll have announcements to address those

issues.

Finally,

Mr. Speaker, the most important thing is for us to work in cooperation and

partnership. We will listen, and we will work with…. Our goal is to have the

world's leading biotech industry located right here in British Columbia.

MANAGEMENT OF HERITAGE SITES

Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services. Last week there were media reports that the province was preparing to

make changes to the way our heritage sites are governed and maintained.

[ Page 1631 ]

As you

know, Barkerville is a major historical site in this province, and it lies in my

riding. I have had a number of inquiries as to what will happen there.

Can the

Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services outline these changes and

tell us how it will affect Barkerville and other historic sites?

Hon. G.

Abbott: We as government are committed to the devolution of management of

heritage sites by '04-05 — not the ownership of the sites but the management

of the sites.

In doing

that, we are building on the current successes we have in terms of private

sector and non-profit sector delivery of management of sites. Emily Carr House,

for example, in Victoria and the Keremeos Grist Mill are two examples of where

we have done very well with local management of heritage sites. In fact, we have

52 such arrangements with a variety of non-profit and private sector

contractors. We'll be moving, over the next couple of years, to expand those.

We will,

among other things, be engaging the communities in and around Barkerville to see

whether we can partner with them in the devolution of Barkerville.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Cariboo North with a supplementary question.

Wilson: The previous government downloaded responsibility to communities

continually. They never left them with the means to deal with their new-found

responsibilities. They believed that if we give them more to do with less for

long enough, they will eventually be able to do anything with nothing.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, order, order.

Wilson: Can the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services tell

us what steps he is going to take to allow the communities to meet their

new-found obligations?

[1430]

Hon. G.

Abbott: I'm pleased to advise the member that the devolution of management

is not driven by cost saving. It's in fact driven by the opportunities for

better management and management closer to the heritage sites themselves. In the

coming year's budget we have added additional funds for heritage site

management.

do want to ensure that as we move towards devolution of the sites in '04-05, all

of them are in sound shape from a physical plant perspective. We are adding

additional dollars to that. As we move forward, we're going to ensure that we

have excellent management arrangements, whether it's with communities like

Quesnel or Wells or whether it's with non-profit societies. As we move forward,

we certainly are going to ensure that our heritage sites continue to be jewels

in the provincial crown, Mr. Speaker.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I table the documents that the Minister of Finance is

unaware of.

Mr.

Speaker: Shall leave be granted?

Leave

granted.

Hon. G.

Plant: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to present the report of the task force on

pay equity.

Leave

granted.

Hon. G.

Plant: I present the report of the task force on pay equity entitled Working

Through the Wage Gap prepared by Nitya Iyer, dated February 28, 2002.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable

Resource Management. In this House I call Committee of Supply. For the

information of members, we will be discussing the estimates of the Premier.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; H. Long in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:35 pm.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

On vote 9:

office of the Premier, $49,727,000 (continued).

MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the Premier or his staff have had a chance

to get the salary rates for the people I asked for and the organizational chart.

I think those are the two things I asked for — the salary rates for the

political staff.

Hon. G.

Campbell: No, hon. Chair, we have not got the salaries together yet, but we

can pass across the org chart, if the member would like.

MacPhail: Is there some difficulty in getting the salary charts? I'm just

wondering. We've had about 48 hours.

Hon. G.

Campbell: No. There have been a number of things on our agenda, and we will

get the information for the member.

[ Page 1632 ]

MacPhail: Sorry, I thought that may be something we could canvass. I thought

maybe you could just ask the staff what their salary rates were and pass that

information across. Perhaps if they're listening, they could just write it on a

piece of paper and send it in.

I've had

some discussions around the public affairs bureau with the Minister of Health

Planning in her estimates, as the Premier directed. Unfortunately, I hate to

say, the Minister of Health Planning referred me back to the Premier and said

she couldn't answer the questions because communications money had been

transferred to the Premier's office through the public affairs bureau. I

honestly said I did not approve of uploading — passing the work upward. I'll

try to limit the comments I have to, really, things I know that the Premier….

I mean, I don't expect the Premier or his office to be responsible for the daily

operations of the line communications, except that the Minister of Health

Planning told me to direct my questions to this set of estimates.

What we

were discussing was how the public affairs bureau has been reorganized to assist

in resolving the concerns that arose as a result of that cabinet submission. The

questions weren't answered. What I was trying to get at is the reorganization of

benefit to the problems the Premier himself identified. Anyway, I didn't get the

answers.

Now, we

know that there are significant changes coming to the public affairs bureau. We

have that information. We have been told — and this all links together,

because I was trying to see whether what we've been told is happening will

actually resolve the problem the Minister of Health Planning had — that

virtually every communications officer in government is going to be laid off or

terminated. Then they'll be given the option to go back to work at the public

affairs bureau as an order-in-council appointee. This is pretty reliable. Is

this what's about to happen?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As I said the other day when we canvassed this issue, hon. Chair,

the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau is currently working with the

deputy minister for the executive council. We have not finalized the structure

even of how we intend to provide for the shared services across government.

Indeed, in the creation of a public affairs bureau, we feel that we will be able

to build the confidence and the expertise necessary across government so that in

sharing services between various ministries we are not duplicating costs and are

in fact building ability and the necessary skills bank we need so that

communication can be comprehensive both internally and externally.

[1440]

MacPhail: Well, I'm advised that this is imminent. If the Premier says this

information isn't accurate, that's fine. All I'm trying to do is find out what

the restructuring is that substantially expands the authority of the Premier's

office, whether it's a solution to a problem such as what the Minister of Health

Planning had or whether it…. Maybe I could offer some advice on it not being.

Is everybody going to be laid off or fired, and will they then be asked to

reapply for an OIC appointment?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As we said the other day when we canvassed this issue, the

planning is currently underway between the deputy minister of the public affairs

bureau and the deputy minister to the executive council. When their position has

been brought forward, it will be brought to me as the Premier. We will discuss

that. We will discuss an implementation plan. That implementation plan will be

in place by the middle of June of this year.

MacPhail: I'm just going to assume that our information is accurate, because

it came from a reliable place. Given that the Premier…. Well, let me ask this

question of the Premier, then. In his public affairs bureau budget for this

year, are there severance costs budgeted for?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The answer is no. The severance costs for government, as we go

through the restructuring — as we pointed out on January 17 and again on

February 19 — are part of an estimate of the costs. They are managed in a fund

under the Ministry of Finance.

MacPhail: I can't get the information from the Minister of Health Planning;

I can't get it from the Premier. I have to go to Ministry of Finance estimates

to find out the severance costs that could be estimated for the public affairs

bureau. Is that right?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Severance costs are estimated across government.

MacPhail: Then I ask the Premier if he could please provide copies of all

contracts, employment agreements and severance provisions for all senior staff

in the public affairs bureau. I'm particularly interested to learn what

provisions have been made with respect to severance for the deputy minister of

the public affairs bureau. Earlier in estimates we examined her employment

contract, her letter of agreement. That was a public document, or it's a

document that I had, anyway. I assume it's a public document. The issue of

severance was not contained within that letter. I was surprised at the absence

of that information, so I'm asking for all contracts, all employment agreements

and the severance provision for all senior staff in the public affairs bureau.

Part of the

information that we also have is that the new structure of the public affairs

bureau will be that ministry communication directors will no longer report to

the deputy minister of their ministry but rather to the Premier's office. Now,

the reason why I ask this is that this is one of the issues I explored with the

Minister of Health Planning last night. I'm not saying that she said this was

going to happen, but every indica-

[ Page 1633 ]

tion…. We had this information about this reorganization, so I was trying

to find out how it worked in the Ministry of Health Planning. Basically, what

she said was that all those responsibilities and that money have been

transferred to the public affairs bureau.

I thought,

putting the information together, that it seemed to confirm what I had heard,

but perhaps the Premier can confirm whether the plan he's working on is that

communications directors in ministries will now go around the deputy minister of

that ministry and report directly to the Premier's office.

[1445]

Hon. G.

Campbell: We did canvass some of this, again, the day before yesterday. I'd

refer the member to page 2 of the office of the Premier's operating budget and

page 3 of the office of the Premier's operating budget; $35.311 million has been

transferred from ministry communication budgets into the public affairs bureau.

Those directors of communication will be reporting through the deputy minister

to the public affairs bureau, who — like other deputy ministers — reports

through the deputy minister to the Premier's office, executive council.

MacPhail: Except that when we canvassed it two days ago, the Premier said

that nothing changes, that operations continue at the ministry level, that the

change wouldn't affect ministry operations. I checked what we discussed, because

I was trying to explore this with the Minister of Health Planning. I am not

accusing anyone of the runaround; I'm not. I know that you're in the middle of a

reorganization, so I'm just trying to find out what the heck the reorganization

is. People are far too suspicious of where I'm trying to go on these matters.

The Premier

said that nothing was going to change, but the minister and this information

that we have seem to indicate that it does.

To the

Premier: all we can do is have this information and try to get the answers in

estimates. When we don't get the answers in estimates, we speculate publicly. I

have had contradictory information from just merely the first two sets of

estimates that I have been personally involved in. It's not helpful. I don't

know whether the Premier wants to assist me in confirming or whether he's even

contemplating this. The reorganization is causing confusion, at least for the

Minister of Health Planning.

Hon. G.

Campbell: First, let me say that I believe that the member opposite is

simply trying to understand what we're doing. I'm sorry that I'm not being as

communicative as I might be or as I should be, or whatever.

Let me try

to take the member through this. First, I'd like to clear up one thing. If I

left the impression that nothing would change, that was a false impression. Lots

will change. We mentioned the other day that we expect the budget to be reduced

from $35 million to $23 million. That represents change.

We said the

other day that we expected the staff in the public affairs bureau to drop

significantly, down to 322 people.

There are

issues. We've tried to lay out a three-year plan that deals with

full-time-equivalent positions as well as finances. That's No. 1.

Secondly,

we do intend to change, and we have indeed changed, the way communication works

within government. In the previous government, at least from all we've been led

to believe, communications was involved in policy development. Indeed, often

there was only communications and no policy development. Our government is

following a different tack. We develop policy; we make policy decisions. Then we

are going to communications to say: "How should this be communicated, how

do you make sure the public understands what's taking place, and how do we make

sure that what's taking place internally is properly communicated?"

That does

not mean that we will deal with rumours or innuendo. It means that when we have

made a decision, we will communicate it. That's one of the goals of the public

affairs bureau.

As I

mentioned to the member when we were at these estimates previously, there is a

process underway whereby I will get recommendations from the deputy minister for

the public affairs bureau through the deputy minister of the executive council

for how this reorganization can take place.

Let me try

to use a couple of specific examples that hopefully will identify what we're

looking at. There will continue to be directors of communications, I'm sure,

that will report to the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau. There

will continue to be a need for presentation materials to be developed. There

will continue to be a need for speeches to be made.

It is our

position that there is not a need for 21 separate speechwriters or 21 separate

groups of people building skills in terms of presentation. By sharing services

across government, we believe we can do this more cost-effectively — both the

communication within government and the communication outside of government.

That's the goal we've set for ourselves.

[1450]

There is a

plan in place. I'm glad to discuss that plan. The goal is to provide a shared

service across government that is effective. The deputy ministers for the public

service and for the executive council are continuing to work on that. Our

deadline for the completion of that plan and for proposed implementation would

be June of this year.

When the

decision is made on what the policy and the implementation plan will be, I shall

tell the member opposite. I intend to communicate that to our employees before I

communicate it to the outside world. That would be an appropriate way for us to

move. That's what we are doing. It is in process, and we expect it to be

completed by June of this year.

MacPhail: Thank you. That was helpful. I still want the information that I

asked for, if I could, please.

[ Page 1634 ]

What I will be monitoring — just so the Premier is clear — is to see

whether the information is correct about the mass layoff or firing and then

reappointment as OICs.

Here's my

concern on that, just so the Premier can maybe put this as food for thought. I

understand the need for OICs. Every government determines a certain number of

OICs that they want. Just for the public's edification, an order-in-council

appointment is one that serves at the pleasure of the Crown rather than by some

sort of common law or a collective agreement law. If indeed the communications

department of the public affairs bureau is going to go to an OIC system, I think

that's a step in the wrong direction for the public service. That's my view.

The

communications officers are an integral part of the government's image and an

integral part of advising the government on feedback from the public. They play

a very important role. There's no question that communications people have to be

committed and loyal and represent the views of the government of the day.

There's no question about that, but they are public employees, in my view.

If there's

a switch in that, I will be watching very carefully the effect of making

communications officers order-in-council appointees. I also will be watching

with care the costs associated with the reorganization.

Beyond

that, I take the Premier at his word that this is a work in progress and nothing

he's able to communicate now, and I will await this matter for the coming June.

I'll give

the Premier some sense of where I'm going next just in case there are staff

issues. I was going to explore the intergovernmental relations secretariat next.

On my list for discussion is the softwood lumber dispute — how it's going with

Ottawa, basically, which is a soft lob to the Premier, given today's news. No,

I'm just kidding. There's health care funding and the Premiers' conference, the

offshore oil and gas moratorium, and the referendum on treaties.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm glad to hear from the member opposite on these issues, and

depending on the level of detail, I'm prepared to discuss all of them with you.

MacPhail: It was very good news today. It's very good news for British

Columbia, about the comments from the federal government on the matters raised

by the Natural Resources minister, Herb Dhaliwal. Perhaps the Premier could give

us his view of what's happening in the areas raised by Mr. Dhaliwal and also

just how the formal relationship….

Interjection.

MacPhail: Oh, sorry. Well, I can do it, because it is good news. He made a

major speech, and he said that topping the list is a commitment to proceed

with….

Interjection.

MacPhail: Maybe I'll let the minister. It's better to hear it from your own

side.

[1455]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I thank the member opposite. If she'd like, I'll go through some

of those issues that we've dealt with federally and what we've been trying to

do. If the member's talking about the specifics of what the senior federal

minister for British Columbia said at the board of trade speech today, I'm aware

of some newspaper reports but nothing beyond that. If you'd like to add more,

feel free.

First, in

terms of intergovernmental relations, one of the goals we've set for ourselves

as a government is to make sure that Ottawa is aware of our provincial agenda.

What are the issues that we deal with? As the member opposite will know, there's

a vast array of issues. We've been trying to focus Ottawa's attention on our

priority issues so we can work our way through those and, hopefully, get

successful resolution. I would be less than candid if I didn't say that

sometimes the ability to get the action we want takes longer than we'd like, but

I think we're making progress.

Specifically,

on the issues that I understand from the media that we have heard from, the

member opposite should know that we have had a strong commitment from the

federal government to support our bid for the Winter Olympics. Our bid for the

Winter Olympics is estimated to cost between $20 million and $25 million. The

province has put $9.2 million into it through the provincial coffers and Crown

corporations. The federal government will be sharing equally — $9.2 million.

The balance of the bid — whatever the balance comes to be — will be raised

from the private sector.

Part of our

pre-Olympic bid included the necessity for an expansion of the Vancouver

Convention and Exhibition Centre. It includes a request for a commitment from

Ottawa to support a transit link between the airport in Richmond and downtown

Vancouver. It includes a request for the development of a media centre in

Richmond, which will be an extension of their convention centre, and also five

Olympic centres around the province which will focus on Olympic activities. I'm

not sure if the member opposite is aware of this, but in many jurisdictions they

have special presentations of Olympic events in these activity centres. They

will be more regional centres.

I think

we've had good response from the federal government with regard to our

pre-Olympic initiative. Obviously, to be able to move forward with the Olympics,

we have to have a bid prepared by January of 2003 — not a qualified bid, not a

"maybe we'll do this" bid, but a bid that says: "This is what we

intend to provide and how we intend to provide it."

We were

encouraged by the federal government in December when they said they would be

willing to pursue public-private partnerships for the establishment of

infrastructure. We have identified the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition

Centre not just as a major component of the Olympic bid but also as a candidate

for public-private partnership. Ottawa has agreed with that. I understand the

minister has said that they are very supportive of the direction with regard to

the Convention and Exhibition Centre.

[ Page 1635 ]

Having said

that, we do have to understand that a significant amount of work has to be done

to develop the feasibility, the cost-benefit and the business plan for that

facility in Vancouver as part of the Olympic bid. There are a number of issues

remaining. What we have done, as the member will know from looking at the

estimates, is closed what used to be the office for British Columbia. Rather

than have that office, which was basically sitting empty, we have chosen instead

to have far more consistent contact with Ottawa on the issues that we are

dealing with. My deputy minister has regular contact with the deputy minister of

the executive council and also has regular contact with Ottawa with the deputy

minister of the Privy Council.

With regard

to softwood, I think the Minister of Forests has done a very good job of moving

B.C.'s agenda. As I know the member opposite is aware, the softwood negotiation

that is taking place is a negotiation which includes all the provinces, as well

as the national government and the administration of the United States. It was

launched by an industry segment in the United States. British Columbia, in fact,

is the target of the American industry's suit.

[1500]

To give the

federal minister his due, he has worked very closely with our Minister of

Forests in trying to move this forward. We are moving it forward on a number of

tracks. One is to inform, as well as we can, the American consumer of the

impacts of the softwood lumber protectionist initiative undertaken by the

American industry. Two is the litigative route, which includes a legal challenge

to the WTO as well as a legal challenge under NAFTA. Three is the administrative

route, which is to sit down and inform the United States, the industry and the

administration of why their suit makes very little sense.

All those

are moving down the road today. There continues to be work to try to get a

stable, long-term solution that will provide access for B.C.'s forest products

into the United States. I cannot advise the member of any up-to-date matters

that haven't been discussed, actually, in the last couple of days.

Health

funding. Do you want me to go through it in this way?

MacPhail: On the Olympic bid. The senior minister for B.C. intimated in his

remarks — I don't know whether he actually said it at the board of trade today

— that the convention centre was a go. Is that part of the Olympic bid

package? If for some reason the Olympic bid fails — I hope it doesn't; I'm

very supportive of it — in the Premier's view, what happens to the convention

centre?

Hon. G.

Campbell: We would expect that the same policy that was applied to the

Toronto Olympic bid would be applied to the Vancouver Olympic bid.

The

Vancouver Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games for 2010 will require us to make

early commitments — by January 2003. Once those commitments are made, we

expect the federal government to carry through on them, as will the provincial

government as we move forward, regardless of whether the bid is successful or

not.

However —

and I appreciate the support from the member opposite — we expect to be

successful. We have the best site. We will have the best facilities, and we will

meet the needs of the International Olympic Committee. More importantly, we will

meet the needs of Winter Olympic and Paralympic athletes who will want to come

to Vancouver for 2010.

MacPhail: Is the private sector involved in the moving forward of the

convention centre through the Olympic bid, or is there a separate commitment?

There used to be a separate commitment. I think it was through a hotel tax,

particularly in Vancouver. What's the commitment now?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Just to clarify, there has already been a request for interest

from the private sector to join a partnership with the federal and provincial

government in building the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre expansion.

It will remain a critical part of this.

One of the

issues we will deal with as we move through the next nine months towards the

date when we must have that proposal all together is what the legislative

framework will be that will allow that to take place. It will be part of the

Olympic bid, certainly. There's every intention, from our government's

perspective and the federal government's perspective, that the private sector

will remain a critical component of that.

MacPhail: On the issue of softwood, the clock is ticking. March 21 is one

deadline. As I understand it, the March 21 deadline is just to prepare us for

the full impact about two months later.

Are there

contingency plans being developed for a March 21 negative ruling, which the

Premier is aware of?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I have asked the Minister of Forests and his officials to prepare

for a series of eventualities. One is that we resolve the issue. Two is that we

have an agreement as to how we're going to resolve the issue. Three is that we

don't resolve the issue.

[1505]

The

immediate impacts of a non-resolution will be continued litigative effort from

both the province and the federal government. There will be a number of

initiatives that will have to be undertaken with regard to how we move forward

with families, particularly, who may be affected by this. That is an ongoing

piece of work being carried out by the Ministry of Forests as well as the

government. I tried to leave this — and I think that the Minister of Forests

tried to leave this — with the provincial congress: that we indeed have to be

aware of the impacts this will have on communities across the province, and

we're looking for ways that we can help mitigate those.

[ Page 1636 ]

MacPhail: I note that the federal government has filed a NAFTA challenge and

then, yesterday, filed a WTO challenge. Are we party to those challenges, or is

it possible for us to make challenges separately from that?

Hon. G.

Campbell: We have agreed with the federal government that they are the

primary mover of this agenda. We believe that they have both the expertise and

the resources to deal with these trade matters. We are in touch with them daily.

They look at us as a client, not as someone who should be left out of the loop.

They do everything they can to keep us in the loop. We are both aware of and

supportive of the initiatives that have been undertaken, and we would not expect

to take separate actions on behalf of the province either with the NAFTA or the

WTO legal challenge.

MacPhail: Do those discussions on the NAFTA and WTO challenges occur through

the Ministry of Forests bureaucracy or through the intergovernmental relations

bureaucracy?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Ministry of Forests.

MacPhail: Does the Ministry of Forests manage the relationships not only

with the federal government but with the other provinces as well, on this issue

— the softwood lumber dispute?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Just so I can be very clear about this as well. When I came to

office — actually, before I was sworn in as Premier — I went to the Western

Premiers' Conference. There had not been, really, very much interprovincial

coordination of what the provincial approaches would be so I initiated that our

Minister of Forests work with their ministers of forests, so the west would have

at least a common understanding of where various provinces were. The Ministry of

Forests now carries that item.

For

example, we had a meeting of the Premiers at the end of January. We brought them

together again. That's something on our agenda that we talk about. If there are

any problems, that would be done through the intergovernmental relations. The

specific driving of the agenda, the day-to-day activity and the day-to-day work

and decision-making, comes out of the Ministry of Forests.

MacPhail: I know the federal government is trying very hard to suggest that

there is a common front across Canada. I actually think that at this very

moment, there is a common front. I think it's fragile, but there is a common

front;

whereas in months past that common front was negatively affected by some

actions, particularly by Quebec. But I believe there is a common front now.

Separate

and apart from the federal government's work on this softwood lumber dispute, is

the Premier comfortable that there's a common front amongst the three or four

provinces affected by this? Is there a common front that's unshakeable in that

matter?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I have to say that I believe we have a common front that's

resilient. Whether it's unshakeable or not is another question.

The four

provinces that have been sort of at the focus of this…. As I mentioned

earlier, British Columbia is the target of an awful lot of this discussion.

British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec are the four provinces that are

most directly affected. The Maritime provinces have been brought in, to a

significant amount,

whereas before they were exempted from this. Saskatchewan

and Manitoba, I can tell the member opposite, have been very cooperative with

British Columbia as have, indeed, the other provinces.

I should

just say that I think the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia have been

working fairly closely together. The challenge we face is that every province

has a different regime. Every province deals with their land base and their

forest policy framework in a different way.

[1510]

The fact

is: British Columbia has over 50 percent of the trade exports in the United

States from Canada. That's why they focused on us. British Columbia is generally

in the lead. We do a lot. I know the Minister of Forests does a lot to keep the

other provinces onside.

I think it

is fair to say the federal government looks to British Columbia for the lead.

They look to be sure that when they are stepping on this file, they're stepping

forward in a way that's consistent with what we have recommended. They have been

equally frustrated with us and our, at times, seeming inability to focus the

American industry — more than the American administration — on solving the

problem. But I think, generally speaking, we have had good cooperation.

There will

be disagreements within the eleven parties that we end up dealing with, but I

believe we still have a resilient and consistent approach. What I should say, so

there's no misunderstanding, is that everyone shares a common goal and a common

objective. The only issues that we debate are how we get there.

MacPhail: On the question of American relations, Les Reed wrote a very good

two-piece series in the Vancouver Sun where he really was saying that the

Americans themselves are at fault on this file, because of their elimination of

ten billion acres, I think it was, of usable land for softwood lumber. He was

pushing very hard to say that it's all political, and the fault is the making of

the Americans.

I know

there were some consumer and construction groups who were pushing back hard on

behalf of the British Columbia position. What's the status of relations either

with consumer groups or with homebuilder groups and/or Senators and

Congresspeople in Washington, D.C.?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The update I'm going to give the member now is general, because I

can't tell you exactly where we are today.

Let me be

clear with the member that I believe there is a substantial…. Indeed, I think

one of the fears that

[ Page 1637 ]

all of us have is that this is not about free and open access to trade. It is

purely about protectionism from a relatively small number of mills in the

southeastern part of the United States that cannot compete. They are using

whatever tools they can to try and put themselves in a better position.

I have not

read the comments from Mr. Reed, but I know that one of the challenges that

Governors have suggested to me that they face is that there is not the supply of

fibre that they need for their mills and their states. I can tell you that the

Governors are consistent. The challenge is not Canada, British Columbia or any

of our provinces; the challenge is their federal management of their federal

forests in the United States.

I think

there is another challenge which is far, far heavier a challenge that, indeed,

the American industry is not allowed to discuss or not allowed to pursue, and

that is: we have a Canadian dollar that's at 62 to 63 cents. That makes us very

competitive compared to an American dollar that's a dollar. A thousand board

feet at 63 cents is better than a thousand board feet at a dollar. We know that,

and they know that.

What we've

been pursuing with the envoy Governor Racicot, specially appointed by the

President, with the American Ambassador and the secretaries of commerce…. I

should say that has been pursued not just provincially with us, with our

connections, but also by the federal minister responsible for trade, the federal

Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. They have all been trying to inform

the Americans of the differences between what takes place in Canada and what

takes place in the United States. Our task — I have done this with both

Governor Racicot and the American Ambassador — is to point out the difference

between British Columbia and the United States.

To use an

example, hon. Chair, when a Premier of a province tells an American Governor

that we own 94 percent of our land base, they can't believe it. We do. What we

try to point out to them is that we are simply trying to manage our land base in

a socially responsible, economically responsible and environmentally responsible

way. We have a lot of work to do on that. We've got to continue with that, and I

would say to the member opposite that regardless of what happens on March 21, we

have to continue with that, or this is going to keep on coming back and biting

our workers across the province and the forest industry.

[1515]

The second

thing I'd say is that the consumers — the consumer groups, the homebuilders,

the construction trade unions — understand the impact of protectionist

policies on their members and their ability to buy homes. I would say this, in

all candour: the negative impacts are dispersed across the country,

whereas the

challenge comes from a very small group of protectionists. They see

substantially different results from their protectionist strategies, and they

see real benefits for themselves. They focus their agenda on that.

We've

worked through our connections in the United States, through the various

industry associations. We've worked to build up support in the Senate and build

up understanding in the House. There have been a significant number of Senators

who've written to the administration and encouraged the administration to put

this aside. I should say that I believe if the administration actually could

deal with softwood lumber one-off, we would have solved it by now. They can't

deal with it one-off; at least, that's what they would tell us. There's a whole

other series of issues they have to deal with, with their Congress.

There are

challenges we have to face, not the least of which is that so much of our

softwood goes to the United States. We have to do a number of things to start

mitigating that. We are going to pursue this, hopefully, to resolution by March

21. Regardless of what happens on March 21, if we are successful, we are going

to continue to pursue information of the American public, the American

homebuyer, the American homebuilder and the Congress. This is a substantial

political issue, and we're going to have to keep our political ducks in a row if

we're going to make sure that we have a long-term, sustainable access to the

American markets and that we don't have this coming back and hitting us every

three to five to ten years in British Columbia.

MacPhail: Yes, I absolutely agree.

One of the

other trade disputes that's going on, which really doesn't affect British

Columbia terribly, is the wheat trade dispute. One of the things I've noticed

there is that the Americans bluffed on the wheat trade dispute, where it's

virtually identical to the softwood lumber dispute. The farmers, mainly the

prairie farmers, said: "Well, whatever. We'll just find other markets. You

can impose whatever you want on our wheat being imported to the United States,

but we have other markets, so we don't need you, basically, for selling our

wheat." Immediately, the consumer issues that existed in America came to

the fore: "Hey, wait a minute, government. We need Canadian wheat, because

we don't grow enough of our own."

It's

exactly the same as the softwood lumber dispute. So I'm wondering what the

Premier can tell me about exploration of other markets and the effect of….

Yeah, I'll just ask both questions, because they're together. The exploration of

other markets — where are they? What are the requirements of change or

emphasis in marketing that we need to do in order to get those markets?

Hon. G.

Campbell: First, I think there are some significant differences between

softwood and wheat. Let me just identify one for you. The biggest frustration

that Canadians and British Columbia producers have is that indeed all that's

happening is that their share is shrinking. The American market is being picked

up by Swedish forest companies, by European forest companies, by forest

companies from South America. One of the things that we have been saying to the

Americans is: "We don't understand this. You're supposed to be a free trade

nation. You're supposed to be having open access to markets. We do not subsidize

our product; we

[ Page 1638 ]

simply have good product that you can get at good value. Why are you saying

that British Columbia lumber shouldn't come to you, but you're taking Swedish

lumber to fill the gap?"

It's not

like the American producers are watching as that market share is substantially

shrinking on their behalf, so there are some substitution issues we have to be

aware of with softwood.

I concur

with the member opposite in this regard: we are going to constantly be

vulnerable if we don't expand our market base. One of the things the Minister of

Forests has in his budget is an international marketing component. Probably the

best case study of how B.C. built an international market is the Japanese

market. Unfortunately, the Japanese economy is having the same problems in many

ways as the world economy, and more so. As their Prime Minister tries to

transform their economy, there's some uncertainty there.

[1520]

I was in

Japan in November of last year, I think it was. We were working with Japanese

homebuilders to try and ensure that we could have the kind of building codes we

needed, that we were meeting their requirements. One of the things I'm

encouraged by is that we have a number of lumber companies in British Columbia

that believe they are now in a position where, as we become more competitive and

get some of our costs down, they will be able to service that Japanese market

far more effectively.

British

Columbia's initial success in the Japanese market also attracted other

competitors, from Europe particularly, who are coming and trying to supply the

customers. We're going to have to be changing some of our market strategies and

product mix to make sure that we continue to hold the share of the Japanese

market that we have.

The Chinese

market offers an enormous opportunity. It is an opportunity that is huge but

also long-term. It's not a market opportunity that we can turn on for July of

this year. It's one we have to build consistently.

In the fall

I visited China with COFI, members of the University of British Columbia, the

B.C. Institute of Technology and local representatives from the city of

Coquitlam. We are building partnerships that allow us to develop the building

codes required that will hopefully provide the access.

We are

currently working with our Canadian counterparts — again, the consul general

in Shanghai, the consul general in Hong Kong, the ambassador in Beijing — to

look at opportunities for British Columbia to promote wood products and

wood-frame housing as comfortable, convenient, safe, affordable and expandable

for the new expanding middle class in China. We think there's an enormous

opportunity there, but to be candid, I do think it's a ten-year opportunity, and

we're going to look to progress through that period of time.

There are

also substantial opportunities in Europe. Those opportunities will have to be

confronted with a proper marketing campaign that looks for the right customers

and provides the right information about B.C.'s forest practices and our

products. Again, I concur with the member opposite that we have to expand our

market base. We have to expand our trade opportunities beyond one primary

customer, at least, so we can mitigate some of the impacts that this kind of

unfair trade action by a small segment of a protectionist industry can have on

British Columbia's families and communities.

MacPhail: Is there any push for certified wood in countries other than

Europe and the United States?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Both our government and other governments are looking for new

independent certifications of wood practices. I can tell you that industry is

very concerned and interested in building, harvesting and developing product

within certification procedures. I think that will have increasing importance in

the years ahead.

MacPhail: I'm finding this information very useful. I'll just give the

Premier a time frame. This is the group of items, and then I think we'll

conclude with the Crown agencies secretariat. In no way am I trying to limit the

discussion. It's helpful for me to know where I can assist on these matters.

Just a

brief discussion of the health care funding, the Premiers' conference and the

reply from the federal government. I'm referring to the January 25 Premiers'

conference.

Hon. G.

Campbell: If it's all right with the member, I'd like to go back to August 1

with regard to health care. The Premiers have agreed, regardless of their

province, that health care is the primary concern that they have. I think the

other day in our estimates the member opposite and I were discussing this. The

Canadian taxpayer expects quality health care. We've been trying to say to the

federal government that that's a service that they should have a partnership in.

As the

member opposite will know, in 1994 the federal government provided 18 percent of

all health care funding, and today they provide 14 percent. The Premiers have

been encouraging the federal government to move back to the 18 percentage point.

Every province in the country is watching as health care expenditures are

increasing far beyond the economic growth of the province. They are saying to

the federal government: "We want you to come in, to be part of the

partnership."

As well as

saying that, though, one of the challenges that the Premiers have been trying to

face — and we will continue to do that, I'm sure, over the months ahead…. I

really think people want us to try and deal with the problems at home. They're

not particularly interested in who's doing what, what the feds should do or what

we should do. They want that problem solved.

[1525]

There are

two specific areas that we decided we were going to act together on in January.

One was the

[ Page 1639 ]

initiative to try and make sure that as we added new drugs to what we call in

B.C. our Pharmacare formulary — other people call it different things in

different provinces…. We wanted to do that in concert. We know that major

pharmaceutical companies across the country spend more money on marketing than

they do on research and development. We want to be sure that there's efficacy.

We want to work with the federal government and the Canadian Institute for

Health Information to make sure that we understand how good new pharmaceuticals

are, whether they're effective or not and whether they're simply more expensive

or actually more effective. We want to work with our physicians across the

country to do that. We don't want one part of the country to be played off

against the next.

We've also

agreed that we are going to make sure we develop a Canadian health awareness

program that is concerted across the provinces. One of the challenges I think

citizens have is that there is an inconsistency of information they receive. I

don't believe that citizens, candidly, are very interested in the Premier of

British Columbia having a fight with the Prime Minister of Canada over what the

facts are. We're trying to get a common base of facts so that we can then start

dealing with….. There may well be public policy differences, but we want to

have a common fact base so that we can then have honest public policy debates

about how we can deliver better care.

The federal

response on health care funding has basically been that they will be doing

nothing until Mr. Romanow has completed his review. That is not a satisfactory

response to the Premiers. I had a discussion with Mr. Romanow prior to his

discussion paper that was released in February. I told him that we really have

to have some interim improvements in federal funding. The pressures on the

health care system across the country are significant. When I say that I told

him, I told him on behalf of the Premiers because this year I'm chair of the

Premiers' conference.

I think we

still have a significant amount of work to do to inform the people of Canada

about the challenges we face and to engage them in a discussion about how we can

improve the health care system.

I will end

on an encouraging note. This is not an encouraging financial note in terms of

the federal government saying, "Yes, we will contribute more, and we'll

move back to our 18 percent," but it's encouraging in terms of the federal

institution. I think that Senator Michael Kirby's report is a very constructive

document. It raises lots of questions. It doesn't provide any answers, but it

says to Canadians: "Here's what we know. Here are some things that you

should know." I am hopeful that Mr. Romanow will be equally forthright in

dealing with the challenges and potential solutions. I am hopeful that Canadians

will join with us to create the environment that says: "Let's focus our

resources on making sure we have a health care system that's long-term and

sustainable for an aging population with new technologies and new pharmacology

and new ways of responding to the needs of patients across the country."

MacPhail: I gather the Prime Minister is firm on awaiting the Romanow

commission report. Then I would assume they're going to have to debate it

internally. It's disappointing that it's going to take that long.

What about

the issue of national standards? I know that at some point the Premiers had an

interest in discussing national standards or pursuing national standards. Are

those discussions put on hold until the Romanow commission is published as well?

Hon. G.

Campbell: My short answer is that we are not trying to put any discussions

on hold. I guess one of the differences is that rather than going to the federal

government and saying, "Why don't you develop national standards?"

what we're saying is, "Let's be sure what we're doing in each province, and

let's see how we can have interprovincial standards that are the same,"

which becomes….

I think the

member opposite would know that if I went to the Premier of Quebec and said,

"Let's have the federal government tell us what the national standard

is," the Premier of Quebec would likely say no. In fact, it wouldn't be

likely. He would definitely say no. I don't think it matters what party you're

from in Quebec.

There are a

number of issues that we've looked at. The Pharmacare issue is a primary one,

and I think that was a significant step. The whole issue of human resource

development across the country, how we provide education across the country….

How we provide for the support of doctors, nurses, health care givers,

physiotherapists, pharmacists, etc., is a huge issue across the country that

we're looking at trying to deal with.

The whole

issue of intermediate and long-term home care, which is called different things

in different provinces, but that would be the vocabulary we'd use in British

Columbia…. One of the things we're trying to develop is best practices.

Without wanting to take too long on this, I'll give the member an example.

[1530]

In Prince

Edward Island they have developed a program with regard to asthmatics. It has

substantially reduced costs. It has substantially increased outcomes. It's

something that we all need to know about so we can see how we can adapt it so we

have the same benefits here.

If we do

something in British Columbia that's particularly effective, we have committed

to share it with other provinces. We believe there's some significant savings to

be found in working together with regard to this not just in terms of

communication but in terms of research. They've got good-quality research that's

working for them on outcomes in Saskatchewan. They've agreed to share it.

Our

government has joined with the western provinces and the territories with regard

to a strategy for fetal alcohol syndrome to try to make sure that young people

who happen to have fetal alcohol syndrome start to get the response they need.

We've gone to the federal government and said: "Here is an area where

[ Page 1640 ]

the federal government can actually make a significant contribution in terms

of research and development of information and demographic information."

We are

pursuing a lot of initiatives within the ministry and intergovernmentally. I

want to be clear. I'm not doing this. As a Premier I move it down, and the

ministers deal with it. The encouraging part of this is that provinces are

taking responsibility now. We can no longer turn our back on our responsibility.

To the

primary question that the member asked, which is: do I think the Prime Minister

is firm? With me at least, I think that when the Prime Minister says no, he

means maybe. When he says yes, he means yes. If he says maybe, he means yes.

Until I get a yes from him, he's going to be saying no, I believe.

I think

they are starting to understand the issue. I think the Minister of Finance,

although he has continually said there's no money, is understanding the issue.

Each province is carrying the issue to their legislators.

As the

member opposite knows, we intend to continue pursuing this on the higher

political level through a special provincial session on health care funding and

health care generally and how we can respond to it, which we'll do with all our

MPs, Senators and MLAs, as we did at the congress.

There are

other areas we intend to pursue that with — transportation being one, and

aboriginal and treaty issues being a second.

MacPhail: Is there agreement amongst the Premiers about what participation

the federal government should make toward increased health care funding? Is

there agreement on how that funding should come — either in transfer of tax

points or in transfer payments?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The Premiers are in agreement that the funding should be raised

back to the 18 percent level. That's what we have agreed to.

Let me go a

little further back. The Atlantic provinces are concerned about the equalization

formula. There was a commitment that the equalization formula would be reformed.

They are pursuing that, as well, as the health funding issue. There is an

agreement that the federal government should go back to 18 percent of health

funding. That's what we're committed to. That's primary.

The

province of Quebec would like the federal government to do it in what they call

tax room. There was another report out of Quebec that suggested that today.

I can say

fairly confidently that I don't believe we're going to get the funding through

tax room. I think it's going to be a contribution that comes back through an

equivalent of the CHST. I think that would be appropriate for us. There's no

question we could focus it on health care. There's no challenge in terms of if

we get the dollars they'll go to health care. I can tell the member opposite

that the province of Quebec at least would rather those dollars came in tax room

as opposed to transfer payments.

MacPhail: My last two topics of discussion in the area of intergovernmental

relations probably overlap. Let me try to give the Premier a sense of what I'd

like to explore: offshore oil and gas exploration and/or moratorium, and then

the referendum on treaties as well. Actually, I have more questions on the

referendum than just offshore oil and gas, but it is the issue of land use and

business certainty.

This is my

understanding, but it is only from a quick purview of what's in the public

domain these days on the offshore oil and gas exploration.

[1535]

The study

that has been done on the advisability of doing offshore oil and gas exploration

safely and environmentally soundly is finished but not released. Is that my

understanding?

Hon. G.

Campbell: That's your understanding, and you are correct.

MacPhail: Phew. Okay.

What are

the next steps in that area? The reason why I'm linking them to the referendum

is this whole issue — which I'm sure the Premier is well aware of; we

discussed it, actually, at the provincial congress — of the stalling of land

claims negotiations. They're not moving forward. People are waiting for the

referendum.

In the

meantime the offshore oil and gas issue has come to a head with the Haida court

case. I am not in any way suggesting that the Premier should feel the necessity

to comment on the Haida court case. I don't expect him to. It does highlight a

particular situation where negotiations have failed to reach a conclusion

leading to an AIP.

I accept

the fact that the AIPs that were concluded in the 1990s failed to be ratified as

well. I also accept the charge that treaty negotiations need to be rethought and

reinvigorated. We will disagree on how that takes place, but I accept that.

However, it is coming to a crunch. There is no question about that. The fact

that the Premier is the government in 2002 makes him the pointy end of that

stick right now.

Hon. G.

Campbell: The crunchee.

MacPhail: Yeah, the crunchee — exactly.

The

implications are fairly substantial, I think. I expect that the court cases that

have been concluded recently will lead to other court cases making the same

point amongst first nations leaders. We have a dilemma in the province of

British Columbia of how we bring certainty to land use. The water leases, or who

owns the subsurface rights to land and subsurface rights to water, in my view

are greatly linked.

I'm

wondering what the Premier is thinking in terms of rolling out solutions to

these various issues.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I was just thinking of a short answer. Let me start by….

Interjection.

[ Page 1641 ]

Hon. G.

Campbell: Yeah, sorry. I assume you'd like a little bit longer than a short

answer. Let me deal with offshore oil and gas first, and then I'll move to the

referendum, if that's all right with the member.

The member

is correct. We have a scientific panel study that has been submitted to

government. Government has submitted that study to the federal government. What

we would like to do is work together on this. As the member opposite knows,

there was both a provincial and a federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas.

We believe

that if in fact there is a potential for scientifically sound, environmentally

safe exploration, we should take advantage of that. We also believe that if we

decide to take advantage of that, that will require us to work with aboriginal

communities across coastal British Columbia and northern British Columbia as we

examine the potential for that. They will be an integral part of the discussions

that we undertake.

[1540]

I believe

it was last week that I met with the first nations treaty task group. We talked

about energy policy, not about offshore oil and gas specifically. That was one

of the things that was covered overall with regard to energy.

suggested a number of ways that the provincial government could work with at

least the task group and first nations who were interested in building energy

capacity to analyze the issues and the opportunities that were in front of them,

the tasks that we may undertake with regards to building skills and the training

that's necessary so that all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal

alike, can take advantage of what I think could be a very exciting economic

opportunity for the province.

We are

going to try and do that in a constructive way and, I would think, within the

next few days. I know that the deputy minister for energy is looking for a

special meeting with some first nations leaders to talk about some of these

options, etc.

It is my

hope that within the next few weeks, we will have a process in place which will

bring together the federal and provincial governments in working both with

aboriginal communities and with non-aboriginal communities alike to continue the

examination of the potential for offshore oil and gas.

In terms of

the court cases which have recently been reported on, obviously the Attorney

General is taking the time that's required for important issues of this nature

to review the judgments that have been made and to make determinations as to

whether or not the province will appeal those judgments or whether they will

take another route.

I do think

that the challenge we face in this dynamic and constantly changing world that we

live in is to recognize that the certainty which the member opposite referred to

can certainly be written up in treaties, but treaties, even with certainty

language, do not create certainty. One of the things that I think we have tried

to share with first nations is that we understand that we have to build new

relationships of trust. Those relationships of trust take place outside of

treaties.

It's not

because we sit down in a room and argue about how we codify things. It's whether

or not first nations feel that we are responding to their needs for better

health care, whether we are responding to their needs for a better education

system for their kids, whether we're responding to their needs for the building

of economic capacity for their communities.

We are

trying as a government to do that — to recognize that treaties are critical

for the long-term future of the province but also to recognize that other

services that we all take for granted are also critical.

I can tell

the member opposite that I have not once sat at a federal-provincial meeting

where we have not shared, as Premiers, our concerns about aboriginal health. I

have not once gone to Ottawa where I haven't raised that issue with the

appropriate ministers or, for that matter, with the Prime Minister. We think

that is a critical service component that has been missing. We often forget that

the fifth-largest provider of health care in the country is not a province; it's

the federal government, which is supposed to provide health care appropriately

in a timely manner to aboriginal communities across the country. They're failing

aboriginal communities in that regard, hon. Chair.

We're

trying to build. On the one hand, we're trying to build new relationships

between aboriginal leadership and cabinet and, through the cabinet, the

government — new relationships through ongoing discussions which are held

between myself and the first nations task group on a range of issues.

We've dealt

with education. We've dealt with health care. We've dealt with energy. We'll

deal with forests. We have a session set up on children and families. That's one

of the things that we're doing outside of treaties.

The

referendum is a way of including British Columbians in the treaty-making process

— I think sending a message, candidly. I would hope that the referendum will

send a message to aboriginal people that non-aboriginal British Columbians want

to resolve these treaties and that they are included in the process of building

treaties. We will continue to work with our aboriginal counterparts and the

federal government to make sure that we can focus our energies, our resources

and our efforts to try and bring treaties to fruition.

As the

member opposite mentions, these are difficult issues. They're difficult issues

within aboriginal communities. The government did a number of things in the last

session to try and be sure that the Sliammon first nation had an opportunity to

agree to an agreement-in-principle. That failed by the smallest of margins, but

regardless of how small the margin was, it failed.

The other

thing I would remind all the members of the House of is that the one place in

the province where we do have treaties — the Treaty 8 in the Peace River —

still doesn't create certainty. Without cooperation, without collaboration,

without consultation, without

[ Page 1642 ]

working together for mutual benefit, we are going to continue to have

uncertainty.

We are

going to try to make sure we work with our aboriginal communities, with the

aboriginal leadership, because we know that in British Columbia aboriginal

people should have the same opportunities, the same sense of hope as other

British Columbians. That's what we're striving to develop.

[1545]

MacPhail: Let me just explore, first of all, the issue of offshore oil and

gas. I'll put my views on the record. They're my views as of now. I come at all

these matters as a person who wasn't born in British Columbia and who thinks

it's the most unbelievable place in the world in which to reside — the most

unbelievable place in the world. I am very nervous about anything that affects

that, in terms of natural beauty and our quality of life. There isn't anyone,

anywhere, who would challenge or disagree with that or say: "I feel

differently."

I don't

know what offshore oil and gas exploration, at the end of this decade, will do

to that feeling I have about British Columbia. What I do know is that when the

issues were examined last century, it put fear into me in terms of what was

available technologically or where one actually even had to go to get the

offshore oil and gas. Scientific proof about not interfering with the quality of

life and our natural heritage is of utmost importance to me.

Second to

that, though, is the worthiness of the project at all. I assume that the

worthiness of the project is based on its economic viability. We see what's

happening on the east coast, where companies have decided not to proceed with

offshore oil and gas exploration — pulling out at a point of investment quite

further along than anything that could even be contemplated here — because of

market conditions. That's fair enough. The economic viability wasn't determined.

If we're going to be pursuing a situation to resolve our economic circumstances

with something that isn't viable, then that's a lot of wasted energy, and it

upsets a lot of people — one constituency of whom is first nations.

Timing on

this is extremely important. Timing on the release of the scientific evidence,

the scientific report, is extremely important because it could either allay

fears or pose questions that the various parties have to pursue. That's the

first issue.

Secondly,

in terms of economic viability, the other factor, of course, is first nations

aboriginal title and aboriginal interest. That's when we get to where offshore

oil and gas is a pretty heavy-duty case in point — but it is just a case in

point — of the consequences of delay in settling matters of aboriginal title.

In terms of

timing, does the Premier himself have a sense of what his preferred timing is in

ordering these events — at least, agreeing on the questions and the data —

before we proceed to resolving the matter?

Hon. G.

Campbell: My timing is to provide for a comprehensive public discussion of

this. I think it is critical that the scientific information be made available.

We will do that. As I mentioned, we are trying to work with the federal

government now to see if, instead of having two or three different processes, we

can have a combined process. We've shared the report with them. We will be

sharing the report with aboriginal leaders.

My goals

and objectives — at least, from what I heard, if I'm interpreting it correctly

— would be similar to what the member opposite's are. We are not going to

jeopardize our natural environment. British Columbians wouldn't want us to do

that. That's why we're having the scientific report. We are going to make sure

there is sound science. We are going to make sure it is scientifically safe. If

those hurdles are overcome, then clearly you'd have to be sure that it was

economically viable. The government's not going to be doing this; someone else

will be doing it.

[1550]

Offshore

oil and gas is certainly an issue, but our energy development in the province is

in no way wed to offshore oil and gas. We have enormous energy reserves on the

land base.

The timing

with regard to the determination of who owns the seabed…. Obviously, my

position is that the province does. The Haida's position is the Haida does. The

federal government's position may be that the feds do. I think we'll win, but I

think we should understand that there are going to be people who raise those

issues.

It may not

just be the Haida. Certainly, we'd like those things to be resolved. We've said

we'd like them to be negotiated, not litigated. My recollection is that the

Delgamuukw case took seven years between when it was entered into the courts and

when there was a final decision. We will pursue this. I think we should

understand that aboriginal communities always have the opportunity to litigate

their positions, and they may take it.

I also

think that what we have to do is work with aboriginal communities so they see

benefits, not just costs, so they have the capacity to examine what's taking

place. I would go beyond the energy development. If you take some aboriginal

leadership and some aboriginal communities, and you say to them, "By the

way, we'd like, in the next week and a half, for you to respond to this 411-page

land use plan and all the issues it deals with," they don't have the

personnel, at this point, who can examine that in a way that gives them comfort.

If they don't get comfort, they're going to say no.

We have to,

I think, work with aboriginal leadership to make sure we're building that

capacity across the province and that we're building excitement for economic

opportunity. I believe that aboriginal leaders, like non-aboriginal leaders,

want to find that balance or solution where economic opportunity and

environmental improvement are actually wed. I believe we can find those places

if we're working together, and that's certainly one of our goals.

[ Page 1643 ]

MacPhail: Good. That's very informative.

On the

offshore oil and gas, there was a very interesting op-ed piece by David Anderson

— something the Premier said flagged me to remember this — about it's not

going to be the government that's doing the exploration; it's going to be a

private interest. I noted the op-ed piece by the federal Environment minister.

It was very well written and very thoughtful but also very cleverly written, to

the extent that he said when an industry proposal comes forward that meets these

tests…. In other words, the tests that he was laying out were tests for

industry when they come forward with a proposal. What he was saying, which is

what the Premier is saying, is that it's private industry that will be doing

this work.

Has the

Premier — I note, and I can ask the Minister of Finance during his estimates,

because I understand he was in Calgary talking to the industry — had a proposal

or exploratory talks from anybody who is actually interested in exploring

offshore oil and gas? I promise him: I don't know the answer to that.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I was part of the Team Canada West tour, if you want, down to

Texas and California. People didn't come to me and say: "Boy, we can hardly

wait to drill a hole offshore in British Columbia." They basically are

interested in it. They're interested in what our policy in it is. I have never

had a discussion with someone who's saying: "We'd like to have an

appointment with the Premier because we want to start offshore oil and gas

exploration." That's with the private companies, which is what I'm assuming

the member was talking about.

There are

an awful lot of people in the northwest who believe there is a huge opportunity

and come to me on a regular basis and say: "Please, can't we start drilling

tomorrow?" The short answer to that is no. We can look at the information.

We can get the scientific facts. We can develop a program so that we can find

out…. To use, again, the member opposite's words or, at least, to paraphrase

them: let's establish what the standards are and how we can determine whether

they're being met or not. If people meet our standards, and we know there's

sound science, and it can be done in an environmentally safe way, then someone

may want to come and make a proposal. If we don't get that menu of items on the

shelf, no one's going to come and make a proposal.

[1555]

I do think

we should all understand this. There's lots of places that people can go to

explore for energy. What British Columbia will be trying to do is say that this

is a good place to explore for energy because we think there are some huge

energy advantages in this province, and it's a great fundamental asset we have,

but I'm not going out and selling offshore oil and gas. I've been waiting for

the information. There's a lot of work to do there. I think there's great

potential if we can do it with the conditions I've laid out. If we can, we'll

move forward.

MacPhail: I was flagged to one last point on offshore oil and gas. I think

it was your government, not ours, that appointed a northern task group of MLAs.

Have they reported out on this matter?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Yes, our government came up with the brilliant innovation of

appointing a northern caucus of all the northern MLAs. The northern caucus did

go across the north, and they had hearings on that. They have reported out on

it, and I believe it's public.

MacPhail: Okay. If anybody can give me assistance on how to find that on a

website or whatever, I'd appreciate it.

To the

Premier: I'd like to move to the referendum question to link it to the current

issue of certainty. I'm not using "certainty" as the legal definition;

I'm using it in terms of investment certainty. One of the things that was

interesting — and I was just given this today — is from the Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs. They've gone public with this. They're taking the Attorney

General's word that there will be a debate in this Legislature within two weeks

on the questions for the referendum. Their view is that there will probably be

four or five questions.

I do recall

the Attorney General saying at the provincial congress that he expected to

debate those matters within a week or two. Is there any change in that point of

view from what he outlined at the provincial congress?

Hon. G.

Campbell: In terms of the timing, no.

MacPhail: Good. We are talking about having that debate in the Legislature

probably in March. I know the Premier said yesterday that he was going to keep

his commitment that the referendum would be before June 5.

Here's what

I'm extremely nervous about. The Premier knows that I oppose the referendum, but

the referendum is going ahead, so it's my job to deal with the reality of the

circumstances. People who have had the time to pay attention to this matter have

the 16 or so questions that were done by the Select Standing Committee on

Aboriginal Affairs. I'm concerned, I must say, that if there are four or five

questions, or if there's a different….

I know the

government didn't commit to those 16 questions, but if somehow there are four or

five questions that either combine or completely change what that report is,

there's going to have to be a lot of public discussion about that. Families are

going to have to spend lots and lots of time, first of all, finding out the

information about the consequences and then determining their point of view

about the consequences.

The sooner

we have that discussion…. It's absolutely critical to have that discussion. If

we do it mid-March or the end of March — we're taking the week after this off,

so it could be the end of March — that virtually leaves two months for

provincewide debate on these matters. The Premier knows it's going to be

[ Page 1644 ]

extremely controversial. Many, many people will have widely held points of

view and differing points of view.

[1600]

The reason

why I say this is that attached to the news release from the UBCIC is a legal

analysis by Louise Mandell, QC. Louise Mandell was the one that brought the case

forward yesterday on behalf of the Haida. It's not related. I'm just pointing it

out. What I'm basically saying is that she knows her goods.

Her

analysis is extremely interesting in that, I think, there's almost a point of

view held in here that regardless of the referendum, there may be court

challenges. I'm not saying that's what this is because, of course, I'm not a

lawyer, but in terms of investment certainty, we have to get some sort of

stability to this issue of land use generally, whether it be sustainability

issues or aboriginal title issues. It doesn't bode well right at this point.

I'm really

urging the Premier and his government to settle quickly on what the questions

are in order to give British Columbians enough time to have a thorough

discussion before the referendum. In the long run, it will not assist him in

bringing investment certainty if, indeed, it's so controversial and if it's an

ill-informed referendum. I mean that in the kindest sense to British Columbians.

They may not have time to absorb the new questions or literally time enough to

absorb the range of questions.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I agree with the member that we have to do this as expeditiously

as possible, but I also believe we have to do it carefully, and I think we have

to do it thoughtfully.

The work of

the legislative committee submitted 16 questions. Indeed, there are questions

where I think we need to ask ourselves about the constitutionality of the

questions, the legality of the questions, etc. We have to ask ourselves whether

we're going to be pursuing this under the Referendum Act of the province, which

means there are certain requirements that flow from it.

I have not

seen either the press release or the legal concerns of the council, but I can

tell the member opposite this. I concur that we should be moving as quickly as

we can. We are moving as quickly as we can within a framework of prudence that

allows us to move forward.

I want the

member to understand that I would be surprised if the Attorney General comes

back with exactly the questions that were laid out by the legislative committee.

Indeed, our goal is to ensure that the questions we ask British Columbians are

understandable so that they can be used as a framework for negotiation, and that

is often difficult.

I concur.

We want to move forward. I think we can. I believe that in the two months we may

take between now and when a referendum is held — or I guess it would be three

months up to June 5 — we will be in a position where we have British

Columbians onside saying: "Let's get on with this. Here are the principles.

We have confidence in where you're going. We understand what is going on inside

the treaty room." I think that gives us significant authority to act.

The other

issue that the member raises, and I think we have to recognize this, is that

with or without the referendum, treaties are going to remain a very difficult

and vexing challenge for British Columbians. I would love to be able to have all

the treaties concluded tomorrow. All that would be required for that would be

for me to be able to say: "This is what a treaty is." I'm not in that

position. Neither is the federal government, and neither are the aboriginal

communities. If an aboriginal community decides it doesn't like the progress

we're making or doesn't like an answer they're getting, they may decide to

litigate.

I believe

one of the challenges for all of us is to recognize that treaty-making is

complex. It requires good faith, and it requires trust to be able to move

forward and create those treaties. We're going to try and build that. It will be

built over time. We will also build over time, I hope, a new relationship with

aboriginal leaders and aboriginal people across the province and a new

understanding between non-aboriginal people and aboriginal people so that all of

us share in the potential of British Columbia and the promise of the province.

The short

answer for the member opposite is this. We will move quickly. We will move with

prudence. We will move to include the people of British Columbia. We will move

to have what I hope will be an informed and thoughtful discussion amongst

British Columbians about this critical issue, and we will move together to try

and resolve treaties.

[1605]

I believe

we can do that. I believe it will be difficult. With the best will from the

provincial government, the federal government and aboriginal community leaders,

it is still going to be a vexing and challenging problem that we face. I believe

we can face it, as British Columbians, and the referendum is an opportunity for

all British Columbians to send a message to aboriginal leaders that we want to

face this together.

MacPhail: My last question in this area. The Premier announced that there

would be an independent office that the public could access if they had any

questions on that. I don't think it is up and running yet. Can the Premier give

some sort of time frame? Will it spring into action when we actually settle on

the questions, or is it being put in place prior to that?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm not trying to avoid this answer, but for the specifics of that

I'd like you to ask the Attorney General. I'm glad to find the answer to that.

My understanding is that the office will be put up once the debate has been held

in the House and the discussion has been made.

If I may,

hon. Chair, I'd like to correct something I said to the member earlier. I said

that the northern caucus report had been released publicly. It has not been

released publicly. It is also in the Ministry of Energy and Mines. It will be

released when the scientific panel

[ Page 1645 ]

study is released, and we expect that to happen within the next few days.

MacPhail: I'm going to move to Crown agencies secretariat now. In the last

estimates of the Premier, the reporting relationship was just being set up for

the Crown agencies secretariat. Perhaps the Premier could explain to me how the

reporting works now in terms of Crown corporations, the ministers and the

Premier's office.

Hon. G.

Campbell: The deputy minister to the Crown agencies secretariat reports

through to the deputy minister for corporate planning and restructuring. I'm

just looking for it here in the organization chart. It's about halfway through

the organization charts, which we just passed over, hon. member.

The Crown

agencies secretariat works to develop new governance structures and has been

working with the deputy minister to the Premier for corporate planning and

restructuring. I would also refer the member to the service plan. On page 11

there is a discussion about the core services review and how that will be moving

forward. As well, on pages 12 and 13 there are some issues that may provide

information that would be helpful to the member.

MacPhail: I do recall the Premier saying that the core services review is

going on for the Crown corporations as we speak. We did have that discussion.

We'll just

deal with the Premier's view on several policy matters related to Crown

corporations. I hope I'm not going into an area that should be discussed with

the ministers.

[1610]

The first

one is the Crown corporations that would be affected by the energy review panel.

This is an interesting one as well. I know the throne speech referred to the

Energy Policy Task Force, and the Premier has replied that it's an interim

report and that more would be coming out on it.

I've

followed with interest the reaction to the interim report. I have to admit that

I was a bit surprised, even given my political cynicism. I was surprised at the

reaction to the interim report for the reason that, I guess, in their honesty

— there's no question the task force was very forthright — they really set

the cat amongst the pigeons. Domestic consumers, residential consumers who are

worried about hydro rates are concerned. Industry and environmentalists are

concerned, and those that are worried about the fiscal well-being of our

province are concerned as well.

Has the

Premier had any discussion with the various parties, or is he aware of any

discussion, either informally or formally, with the parties around the reaction

to the Energy Policy Task Force?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Just so I'm clear, is the question: have I had specific

discussions with parties? The answer to that is no, I have not.

I believe

the interim report was put out in the middle of December. There was a request

for public comment. We had requests for us to extend that. It was extended to

the middle of February. I believe that information has now come in, and it's

being processed.

MacPhail: There has been a lot of public discussion on this matter. My

candid advice would be to have the actual task force not provoke things even

more out there. I know that Mr. Ebbels — who actually worked with our

government as well and whom I have the greatest respect for — really set the

cat amongst the pigeons after his interim report. He said that part of the issue

was the artificially low rates that consumers pay now for electricity.

I'm just

going to assume that that doesn't reflect the government's point of view,

because we have had lots of discussions in this chamber about hydro rates, and

the now Minister of Finance has made his point of view very clear about the

value of not artificially increasing hydro rates.

I'm not

even asking the Premier about whether…. I assume he hasn't had formal

discussions. The reaction to the report has been pretty strong. What's the

Premier's view in terms of the recommendation that may add 30 to 80 percent

costs to industry? I thought David Emerson, who is being surprisingly thoughtful

these days…. That was cheeky; I'm sorry — being thoughtful as usual…. He

was part of a group that actually raised concerns about this as well, and yet he

does have the best interests of the economic future of the province at hand,

through his being the chair of the Progress Board.

Interjection.

MacPhail: I knew you were going to say that. So what's the question?

What I'm

asking is: given that we're at an interim stage here, what did the Premier want

to get out of the final report as a result of the reaction to the interim

report? What does the Premier want to get out of that?

Hon. G.

Campbell: What I want to get out of it is the Energy Policy Task Force's

best advice on what they think a strong energy policy would be. I'm not saying

that facetiously.

[1615]

Let me say,

in terms of my response to the reaction, I believe that the task force did a

great service to British Columbia. I think that for too long, British Columbians

have thought that we have this enormous amount of energy, and we can just spend

it — use it however we want — and we don't have to worry about it. We, in

fact, import energy. Energy should be, I believe, a competitive advantage for

British Columbia.

In trying

to establish a public policy framework, I think it's great to engage people like

Mr. Emerson, people like the member opposite and residents across the province,

and engage them with a factual frame-

[ Page 1646 ]

work that allows us to make decisions on the kind of energy future we want in

the province.

We've said

we want to encourage independent power production. We've said we want that

independent power production to be able to plug into the transmission grid so it

actually can be there. I think the member opposite would know that we have said

we want to encourage alternative energy resources. What we've just seen is B.C.

Hydro announcing 18 separate, independent power production proposals for

alternative energies, which will provide a significant amount of energy benefits

using new, clean, environmentally friendly energy. I think it's important for us

to start there.

What I hope

to get out of it is a document that will engage British Columbians in a

discussion about what our energy future should be and how we can get there in

the most thoughtful way.

I believe

British Columbia residents and British Columbia industry should look to energy

as a competitive advantage. How can we assure we have that in the long term?

Those are questions that I think we have to ask.

I welcome

the comments from the major industrial users of our energy. It's not surprising

that major industrial users in the pulp sector or other sectors would be saying

they're concerned about the energy future in this province. I want to hear from

them, and I'm sure the Legislature would like to.

It is

important, though, for us to recognize that if we are going to keep our energy

costs down, we have to provide for the expansion of energy in the most

cost-effective way. That's one of the things that the task force is examining.

Finally,

another issue that we will be discussing in the broader public context is the

whole question of carbonization, the whole question of how we can make sure we

are doing our

part in terms of providing environmentally sensible energy policy.

We're going to have to look at what we all consume — what I consume as an

individual, what our industry consumes. We're going to have to try to send the

message out, as Power Smart does on a regular basis: let's not be profligate

with our energy. Let's not think that it's all there and that there's no cost to

it.

It's a huge

advantage. It has been for more than a generation in British Columbia. We want

it to remain an advantage for residents, for our industrial users and for our

economy. We believe we can do that. We believe the way to engage the public in

that discussion is to lay out a thoughtful presentation, which is what we're

hoping the task force final report will be, that brings people together in what

should be an open, public debate about how we can enhance British Columbia's

energy future, make it cost-effective and make it as competitive as possible.

[R. Stewart in the chair.]

MacPhail: One of the aspects of the report that certainly stirred up debate

was their recommendation to break Hydro up into three parts: generation,

transmission and distribution. That is going to require careful analysis. I do

hope that is part of the task force report that will be discussed thoroughly

before the government moves on. There are many, many British Columbians from

every part of the economy who think B.C. Hydro's monopoly brings great stability

to our energy generation here — and the energy provision.

It's

surprising. I guess it was this time last year — late winter, early spring of

last year — when California was in the biggest crisis of its life for not

having enough energy and paying exorbitant prices. I don't know how the Governor

does this, because he's incredibly popular even today, but he got it wrong on

both accounts. He got it wrong in terms of his deregulation, and then he got it

wrong on how he solved the problem as well — to huge costs to California.

Maybe his best advantages are the Republicans, actually.

[1620]

Right now

they're in a horrible situation in California for being in a deficit situation

because they had to buy into, in a crisis situation, very high-cost energy

contracts. People look at that and say: "Stability comes from a monopoly,

then. Stability comes where the people who generate, transmit and distribute are

able to smooth out those cycles."

What's the

Premier's plan on how there will be public input on these very crucial matters

as a result of the energy task force's final report?

Hon. G.

Campbell: There are a number of issues that I think the member opposite

raised. I'd like to try and deal with some of those and then get to the final

question.

First, the

situation in California, I think, is exactly why British Columbia has to have an

energy policy that includes the public, that recognizes that supply and demand

are linked and that recognizes that as you regulate, as we're intending to do

with energy, you have to regulate within the framework of a public policy that

does make those links. Real stability, frankly, in cost comes from abundant

supply. If there is lots of supply, there aren't the huge energy spikes that

they saw in California. There's been a number of analyses that have been done in

California, which I'm sure the member opposite is aware of as well.

B.C. Hydro

right now — in keeping with their commitment to provide British Columbians

with excellent energy resources as well as allowing for new energy sources to be

brought onto the marketplace so that there is a continuing supply and so that we

can have stable prices for British Columbians — is carrying out a functional

realignment which includes transmission and distribution and generation, etc.,

so that you can see into B.C. Hydro and see where the costs are. We can see

where the subsidization or cross-subsidization may be taking place. Those who

will invest, like the 18 new entities which have decided they want to move

forward with alternative energy sources which are environmentally sensible and

make a difference and add substantially to our supply, have to able to look

[ Page 1647 ]

through B.C. Hydro and see that what they're paying for access to

transmission lines is a fair cost from B.C. Hydro.

I think

that's what is critical as we move ahead. That's what Hydro is trying to provide

for as they look at how they can create that transparency, which is critical, by

creating functional alignments within Hydro.

In terms of

the process we intend to follow, the energy task force will, I'm sure, submit

its report. Its report will be made public. The Minister of Energy and Mines

will bring that report to the Legislature, and then we will have an opportunity

to debate it and the actions that may flow from it.

MacPhail: Good. We'll have an ability to debate it in here. Will the public

have…? Will there be public input to the report that will be guaranteed before

action is taken? Frankly, there's just two of us to do the debate in here. I'm

wondering. I'm sure the public will have strongly held views on it.

Hon. G.

Campbell: First, there has been public input into the development of the

report. The final report will be made public. I can't tell the member what will

be in the final report. I can tell the member opposite that the public will have

plenty of opportunity to comment on it.

I should

also say that I am sure the long-term energy future of British Columbia is going

to be developed over the long term. This is not something that's going to happen

overnight. It's something that's going to require public commitment, public

understanding. The public will be engaged. They'll be engaged through the

Legislature. They'll have plenty of opportunity to respond and react and make

suggestions for how we can improve it.

[1625]

MacPhail: I'm going to move to ICBC now. In that, I also want to just touch

a little bit on the safety programs. I will tell the Premier that I was here in

the House for estimates with the Minister of Health Planning, so I didn't have a

chance to participate in the Solicitor General's estimates around public safety.

The Premier will be happy to know that I haven't heard of any of the internal

machinations that are going on in ICBC directly, only what's in the public

domain.

Has the

core review been completed by ICBC?

Hon. G.

Campbell: No.

MacPhail: I attended one MLAs' function with the insurance agents or brokers

who sell ICBC insurance. The future of ICBC is to be one that increases

competition in British Columbia, but one thing has got lost in the discussions

that I don't know the answer to. When a substantial portion of ICBC is carved

off in one way or another — whether it's completely changed or whether it's a

substantial portion of the business turned over to competition — there is less

revenue flowing to the government-controlled Crown corporation. I'm very, very

worried about the highway safety programs that have been the direct result of

funding by ICBC.

I take it

from a personal point of view. There's just the general tragedy of our highway

accidents, but my child is not that far away from driving.

What are

the discussions? Does the core review involve a review of our safety programs,

our Road Sense safe roads programs? Is that review done within the confines of

ICBC?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Let me say that all of the programs that the member has

discussed…. In the government we are obviously concerned about road safety.

The issue is how you deliver those road safety programs most effectively.

ICBC will

come with their review. As the member knows, we have had a new board for ICBC

for, oh, maybe seven months. They have been tasked with looking at the issue of

competition. They've been asked to look at what has been taken from government

and put into ICBC that maybe should come back to government or maybe shouldn't.

Certainly,

the issue of public safety, road safety, remains a major concern for this

government, as it has been for ones in the past. We will review that as part of

the core review. The results of core review and implementation plans will be

laid before the public, and we'll be able to proceed.

If I can

just be clear about what we're trying to do, we're trying to bring more

competition in to provide people with choice, increase the level of service and

improve the quality of service that people have. We've asked the board to do

that. I'm sure we will have, again, a thoughtful presentation from that board

about the long-term future of ICBC, and that would be part of a core review.

MacPhail: In other jurisdictions that have never had public auto insurance,

the road safety programs that do exist have come out of general revenue, or they

don't exist at all. I would just urge the Premier to take into account the cost

that may be. I expect that everybody in this chamber is committed to road

safety. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson made a very effective private

member's statement yesterday about the need for road safety and the consequences

when it's not fully in place.

[1630]

I worry

greatly that private auto insurance companies do not have a commitment or,

putting the best light on it, don't see it as their responsibility to have safe

roads or to ensure that we have safe drivers. I would just urge the Premier that

there will be a huge opportunity cost to the province if there's expanded

competition or even privatization — huge opportunity cost to the B.C. coffers

if indeed those road safety programs are not continued.

Has the

Premier been receiving information on the issue of these recent tragedies? As

recently as today I saw it linked to photo radar. Has the Premier been receiving

any information on linking those two matters?

[ Page 1648 ]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I have heard some media comment with regard to it, but the main

information we've received is that