2004 Legislative Session: 5th 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)

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 25, Number 16

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Destination ImagiNation competition

R. Sultan

Impact of government policies on

airport authorities

Halsey-Brandt

Hospital Employees Union executive

R. Hawes

Oral Questions

B.C. Rail spending on maintenance and

operations

J. MacPhail

Hon. G.

Campbell

Investigation of child abuse

complaints and death of Kayla John

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Clark

French immersion

R. Stewart

Hon. T.

Christensen

Funding for HIV/AIDS strategy

J. Bray

Hon. C.

Hansen

Tabling Documents

Statement of 2003-04 Borrowings

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

Hon. G.

Campbell

J. MacPhail

J. Kwan

[ Page 11199 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Campbell: At noon today we had a special event in the Legislature to

proclaim June 13, 2004, as Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion Day in British Columbia.

It's a chance for British Columbians to participate in motion events across the

province and to show their support for Rick Hansen's dream.

Rick is

known around the world for his exceptional leadership, improving the lives of

people who've had spinal cord injuries. Indeed, if we think back to when the Man

in Motion tour was completed in 1987, it's hard to believe that 90 percent of

the information we have learned and the science we have developed has taken

place since that time, when Rick and his tour raised $26 million for spinal cord

research.

[1405]

I know the

Legislature would like to welcome Rick to the House today along with

representatives from the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Foundation: Cathy Golabianko,

Theresa Laine, Greg Latham, Bobby Tanguay and Lorraine Wilson. They're here

along with a number of other guests who share Rick's vision for the cure for

spinal cord injuries, and I know that all the House would like to make them

welcome. We all wish for the quick discovery of the cure that will make a

difference in so many people's lives.

Hon. L.

Reid: It's my pleasure today to welcome to the gallery members of the

Canadian Women Voters Congress, a non-partisan organization which is incredibly

effective in terms of welcoming women to the process, teaching them skills about

the democratic process and encouraging them to run in future elections across

all parties. It has been my honour to be the honorary co-chair this year. We

have a number of representatives today that I'd ask you to please welcome. The

chair is with us, Lorraine Sims; board member Janet Wiegand, Leslie Thompson of

Vancouver, Gale Fugere of Burnaby, Allison McDonald of Vancouver, Rosalind

Kellet of Vancouver, Inger Weber of Port Alberni, Dana Miller of Richmond, Jen

Fisher-Bradley of Victoria, Elizabeth Botman of Vancouver, and Angela Matthews.

I would

also extend my thanks to the Speaker for hosting these parliamentarians at a

luncheon.

Would you

please make them very welcome.

Nuraney: I am very proud to announce that a team of young students from

Burnaby South Slope Elementary, after having won the provincial finals, will be

competing in the world finals of the Odyssey of the Mind to be held in Maryland

between May 29 and June 2. They are Jessica Sypen, Nicole A., Chris McClelland,

Kevin Chen, Steven Lin, Dmitri Lennikov and Andrew Woo. They are coached by

their teachers, Holly Lloyd and James Brown. May the House please join me in

wishing them well.

Hon. S.

Bond: On May 5, Softball Canada announced the 15 women who will represent

Canada in this year's Summer Olympics. Among these is a young woman named Sasha

Olson. Sasha is from the small but very plucky community of Valemont, British

Columbia, in my riding of Prince George–Mount Robson.

When

Vancouver hosts the Winter Olympics in 2010, I know that we will see many more

young British Columbians like Sasha, from communities large and small, striving

for success. I would ask the House to please join me in celebrating Sasha's

incredible athletic achievement.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: On behalf of the member for Chilliwack-Kent, I would like to

introduce Ms. Donna Broomfield and her friend Ms. Clark. Ms. Broomfield helped

my colleague get through law school at the University of Victoria by providing

room and board in the early 1990s. As his current roommate, I can certainly

attest to the member's need for culinary assistance. I would ask the House to

please make both these visitors very welcome.

R. Lee:

I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce another school group from

my riding that is visiting the Legislature today. In the gallery are 24 grade 10

students from Alpha Secondary in Burnaby who are here to learn about the history

of the buildings and how the Legislature works. They are accompanied by their

teachers, Mr. Dale Lintott, Ms. Lara Moore and Ms. Linda Bardini. Would the

House please make them welcome.

Sultan: In the galleries today are representatives from one of the largest

goldmining companies in the world, a company which operates in the United

States, Tanzania, Australia, Chile, Peru, Argentina and Russia. It has an

operation here in British Columbia which is noted for its very productive and

healthy working relationship with the Tahltan nation.

They have

heard that there's a new breeze blowing through the mining industry in B.C., and

they're here to check us out. Would the House please welcome Barrick Gold

Corporation's vice-presidents Kelvin Dushnisky and Greg Lang.

[1410]

Nettleton: Today we have a special guest here. Her name is Kaylee Butler.

She's age seven — from Sidney here on Vancouver Island. I'm told she enjoys

Brownies, camping, and she's very interested in the Legislature. Please give her

a big welcome.

Hon. S.

Hagen: In the precincts today I am pleased to introduce to the House Deborah

Fauteux, who is providing administrative support in my office. Would the House

please join me in making her welcome.

[ Page 11200 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) DESTINATION IMAGINATION COMPETITION

Sultan: If any member should despair over prospects for our youth, they

should — such as I did recently — spend a day at Destination ImagiNation.

Each year students from all over British Columbia, ages roughly six to 16 —

about 1,000 of them — gather on the North Shore to be challenged with improv

assignments requiring them without notice, working under tight deadlines and in

small teams, to simultaneously build robust engineering structures, write and

act in a play, and solve complex scientific problems dressed in weird costumes.

Sound complicated? These kids ate it up. By the end of the day, the competition,

accomplishment and fun left everybody feeling wired.

Destination

ImagiNation is based on the concept of divergent thinking — understanding that

there's more than one way to solve a problem. It teaches students to navigate

the challenges of life by tapping into their own creativity and their teammates'

to solve multidimensional problems thrust upon them without warning. Hmm, I

thought. That's how we used to train senior executives. It works.

Our B.C.

contest is one small piece of a global competition. I'm proud that three North

Shore teams are among those from British Columbia who won gold at the recent

provincial tournament. These innovation champions will represent our province at

the global finals next week at the University of Tennessee, where close to

18,000 others from more than 51 states and 20 countries will compete to see

who's the best in the world. I think we are, and we shall soon find out.

By the way,

thanks to director Faith Garriock and the Ministry of Solicitor General for

helping fund this program.

IMPACT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES

ON AIRPORT AUTHORITIES

Halsey-Brandt: I would like to bring to the attention of the House a serious

obstacle in the way of economic development in British Columbia — that of

excessive rent charged by Ottawa to the Victoria and Vancouver airport

authorities. Victoria Airport Authority will pay the federal government $1.1

million in rent in 2004 and has the distinction of being the only small airport

in Canada currently paying rent. Both the Victoria Airport Authority and the

Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce have called for an end to the unfair burden

that federal fees and rents place on their airports, air travellers, and that

hurt the local economy.

In the case

of Vancouver Airport, which is in my constituency, YVR began with a lease

payment of $15.5 million in 1992 when the local airport authority was

established. It has now increased to $72 million in 2004, almost a fivefold

increase over the past decade. In 2002 Vancouver's rent was ten times higher

than Montreal's, seven times higher than Edmonton's and three times higher than

Calgary's. Therefore, not only is the rent payable staggering and the rate of

increase unacceptable, but the rent paid by airports across Canada demonstrates

the unfairness to Vancouver and Victoria.

British

Columbia and YVR also suffer from a very discriminatory foreign airline access

policy. For example, 90 percent of the bilateral aviation agreements allow

access by foreign airlines to Montreal and 75 percent access to Toronto, while

only 40 percent allow access to Vancouver. Canada needs a more liberal

international air policy or, at the very least, to allow equal access by foreign

carriers to any airport.

The federal

auditor general has called for a review of the inequities in the airport system.

Now is the time to bring equality, fairness and an economic development lens to

the system. I know my constituents and British Columbians generally will demand

no less.

[1415]

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION EXECUTIVE

Hawes: We all know that the HEU leadership has refused to allow its members

to vote on whether they want an 11 percent wage rollback or a 10 percent

rollback in benefits. I have a letter here from the employer, the HEABC, to Mr.

Chris Allnutt of the HEU offering 60 days in which the HEU could conduct a

secret ballot vote of their membership to determine whether they wanted the

rollback to be achieved exclusively through wage reduction.

I also have

a leaked e-mail from one of the bargaining committee members to Mr. Allnutt

asking why this letter from the HEABC was withheld from the bargaining

committee. The e-mail says:

"To

find out information like this and, worse, to find out it has been withheld

from members within our bargaining association is even worse. Chris, why are

you not being honest with us? Why are you not sharing all the facts with us?

My members are disgraced at your actions. I have polled VGH, RJH, SPH and SM

facilities, only to find out the same. The consensus is our members want and

expect the union to invoke the arbitration process."

goes on to say: "I think it's appalling that you are not willing for this

decision to go to a vote."

I have

further examples of e-mails from HEU members, all with the same theme. For

example:

know for a fact that the majority of HEU members, especially those in skilled

classifications, want to lessen the impact of the cuts. But once again, the

misguided leadership, led by Chris Allnutt, have ignored their members' wishes

to pursue their own agenda. I also know that leaders of the BCGEU and other

unions are just as frustrated with this arbitrary action. This decision

highlights the dysfunctional leadership and direction that we have long since

rejected and wish to get away from, the sooner the better."

further quote says: "We want to stay and change the health care

bargaining structure, but once again the HEU is the main roadblock to a

commonsense solution and what is in the best interests of health care and the

taxpayers of British Columbia." By denying its membership a vote, Mr.

Allnutt has put politics ahead of paycheques and of people's lives and

families.

[ Page 11201 ]

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL SPENDING ON

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS

MacPhail: Three days until this place shuts down until the fall, three days

until the government can hide from questions on B.C. Rail, and I'm sure they're

all relieved. But before the cabinet heads off for the barbecue circuit for the

summer, maybe the Premier can tell this House how much money B.C. Rail is

spending right now to spruce up operations before the Premier hands it over to

CN for 990 years.

Hon. G.

Campbell: As you know, Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Rail investment partnership

agreement is before the competition board. At the time when that is complete,

everyone will have all of that information. In terms of what B.C. Rail is doing,

it's trying to keep an ongoing operation that works for its shippers, and that's

what we would expect it to do as we go through this transition period.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question.

MacPhail: Well, isn't that interesting? An ongoing operation. Here's what we

know. The government has spent $14 million, much of it on lawyers and spin,

preparing for the handover of B.C. Rail to CN, the new owner. But until today we

didn't know that B.C. Rail is also spending $1 million a month on upgrades,

including brand-new B.C. Rail trucks and vehicles before CN takes control. In

fact, these vehicles are labelled as non–revenue generating, but they're

shiny, they're new, and they're big.

Again to

the Premier: can he tell the House why B.C. Rail is spending hundreds of

thousands of dollars on a taxpayer-financed gift to CN in the form of brand-new

B.C. Rail trucks and vehicles?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm sure the member opposite would understand this. When there's a

transaction that takes place, B.C. Rail has an ongoing operation and maintenance

of its fleet. That's part of what the agreement would obviously have expected.

You wouldn't have expected B.C. Rail to close down while we worked through the

completion of this agreement. But let me say that within the next few days, I'm

sure this agreement will be completed.

Within the

next few days, there will be a billion dollars of private sector investment that

will come into British Columbia. Within the next few days, we will begin opening

up the north to opportunities, to passenger rail service, to gateway service in

Prince George, to a new Prince Rupert terminal and port that will open up huge

opportunities to Peace River farmers. Tourism will benefit. Northern communities

will benefit. Regional communities will benefit.

Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you this. The B.C. Rail investment partnership is going to

make a huge difference in the future of British Columbia.

[1420]

MacPhail: This is the government that said this deal would be done by March

31, 2004. This is a government that doesn't have a clue what's happening at B.C.

Rail right now.

Here's the

expenditure document for April 2004. According to this April 2004 status

report…. It's about B.C. Rail capital spending. It was leaked to the

opposition.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: In the first four months of this year, B.C. Rail has spent

$675,000 on brand-new vehicles for its yards, vehicles that are listed as

non-revenue vehicles — pricey present to CN, a company that I'm sure can

afford to buy its own shiny new trucks. It's just one more example of the B.C.

Liberals keeping costs secret about how much this B.C. Rail deal is costing

taxpayers. They're predicting that they will spend $1 million on these shiny new

trucks. Again to the Premier…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …are these brand-new rail yard trucks and vehicles part of the

contract of sale with CN, or did the government buy these for CN as another

taxpayer-financed token of appreciation for helping B.C. Liberals break their

election promise?

Hon. G.

Campbell: You know, I think the member opposite clearly doesn't understand

that capital upgrade and maintenance budgets are part of an ongoing operation.

The ongoing operation of B.C. Rail is obviously critical as we move forward.

Let me just

say to the member opposite that the great thing about the B.C. Rail investment

partnership is that the taxpayers won't have to pay a million dollars a month to

upgrade equipment. The taxpayers won't have to invest in an upgrade of the

system, because the private sector will be doing that. The private sector will

be creating jobs in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

[ Page 11202 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, can we have order in the chamber, please, so that we

may hear the questions asked and answered.

INVESTIGATION OF

CHILD ABUSE COMPLAINTS

AND DEATH OF KAYLA JOHN

J. Kwan:

In March of this year, the Minister of Children and Family Development told

the House that she does not believe her ministry should be investigating every

complaint that comes through the door or over the phone. Yesterday I asked the

Minister of Children and Family Development if, as a result of 14 complaints

filed by Kayla John's stepfather, the ministry followed the process for

investigating complaints set out by Justice Gove. The minister did not answer

the question yesterday. Does she have an answer today?

Hon. C.

Clark: We investigate complaints that come through the door, through the

phone and to social workers individually. We do that because we have an

obligation to protect children.

For the

family of that little girl, it must be impossible to try and go through every

day knowing that their little girl isn't going to be coming home. As a parent, I

know I look at my little boy every day, and I say to myself: "What are you

going to be when you grow up?" I can't imagine contemplating what it would

be like…

MacPhail: Did you investigate or not?

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: …to look at him and say: "I wonder if you're going to come

home today."

sympathies go out to that family. It's so important that we make sure that the

police investigation finds who did it and makes sure that they are brought to

justice. We need to make sure that police investigation is able to continue

without political interference, and I intend to make sure that happens.

Mr.

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

question.

[1425]

J. Kwan:

I have no doubt that every parent loves their children, and I cannot imagine

for any parent anywhere, any step-parent anywhere, any foster parents anywhere

to lose a child the way in which Kayla John was lost. I cannot imagine the pain

and the grief that individuals would have to go through. I'm not even sure

whether or not they could recover from that.

Let me just

say this. The question that I put to the minister is a critical question. We're

not asking for any personal or confidential details in this tragic case that

would compromise the investigation or compromise the privacy of this family.

What we're asking is if children are falling through the cracks in the

ministry's investigative procedures, and we're asking if the ministry followed

correct procedures — procedures that were set down to protect children from

abuse and neglect.

I remind

the minister that Justice Gove said that any complaint, no matter what its

source, must be fully investigated. As a result of the government's major

restructuring and major budget cuts at a time when everybody said they should

not be cutting the ministry to the degree that they are, I am afraid that

children might be falling through the cracks.

Mr.

Speaker: It's time for the question, hon. member.

J. Kwan:

The question for the minister is: can the minister assure this House that she

has ordered a full investigative review of how the complaints were handled to

assess whether or not Judge Gove's recommendations were followed or ignored?

Hon. C.

Clark: I can tell the member this. When there are concerns and issues raised

about our ministry, we always make sure that we get to the bottom of them.

I can tell

the member this. We will take seriously any concerns that are raised with us in

particular about this case. But I can't tell the member whether or not we are

engaged with this family without compromising their privacy. The member can

stand up and say she is seeking information that won't compromise the police

investigation, but unless she knows what that information is, she can't know

that that won't be the outcome.

It would be

absolutely irresponsible to say anything publicly that might make it harder to

bring to justice the person or people who did this. That family deserves to know

and everybody in that small community deserves to know how this happened so that

we can help them make sure that it doesn't happen again.

In Zeballos

the case is this. There has been no reduction in the number of social workers

that serve Zeballos from Port Hardy. In addition to that, the member should know

that the number of children who have come into the care of the ministry has

dropped by 15 percent, and the number of social workers across the province has

dropped by less than 10 percent.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. C.

Clark: We know, based on the workload model, that the workload level is

actually dropping for social workers across the province….

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: But again, in Zeballos…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[ Page 11203 ]

Hon. C.

Clark: …the number of social workers has not been reduced.

Mr.

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

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

The question that I put to the minister is a procedural question. It's about

whether or not the minister followed proper procedures regarding the Kayla John

case. The minister should answer the question to the affirmative or deny that an

administrative review has been ordered. It's that simple. British Columbians

want to know whether or not the government is doing its job making sure that

children do not fall through the cracks. Did the minister order an

administrative review or not — yes or no?

Hon. C.

Clark: The member can quite cavalierly ask me to provide her with

information saying she knows that it won't affect the police investigation. But

I can't give her information that would impact that, and I can't give her

information that might make it harder to bring to justice the individual who did

this.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: The family of this child — and the family of this child extends

throughout that entire tiny community — deserves to know that the individual

who did this and that the unspeakable, unimaginable crime that was committed is

addressed by our justice system so we can make sure the individual who did this

isn't walking the streets in that community or in any community in British

Columbia.

FRENCH IMMERSION

Stewart: My question is to the Minister of Education. B.C.'s first French

immersion program started in my riding of Coquitlam. French immersion enrolment

is now at an all-time high in this province. This enrolment is destined to grow

as more families come to appreciate the many benefits of having their children

attend a French immersion program.

[1430]

Can the

minister tell me what we are doing to ensure that a child who wants to attend a

French immersion program can do so in B.C.? How will our government ensure that

there are enough teachers able to teach French immersion available to meet this

demand?

Hon. T.

Christensen: I thank the member for the question. It's true that French

immersion programs throughout the province are a great example of choice

programs that are offered here in public schools in British Columbia. As the

provincial government has encouraged school districts to respond to the requests

of parents and students around the province, we've actually seen the number of

French immersion programs increase. In fact, this last year we have nine new

French immersion programs in the province in eight different school districts.

French immersion is something that a lot of parents are demanding, and it is

increasing.

We're also

working with the federal government and Simon Fraser University to add French

language post-secondary programs and build on those at Simon Fraser University

so that our teachers in training have greater exposure to French programs so

they will be better prepared, once they graduate, to join their colleagues in

teaching French immersion throughout British Columbia.

FUNDING FOR HIV/AIDS STRATEGY

J. Bray:

British Columbia's Framework for Action for HIV/AIDS states as one of its

main goals the reduction in the number of new infections and reducing the spread

of HIV. Now, I've had several meetings with community organizations in my

riding, and they're asking whether the province will be matching funds to meet

the goals of the B.C. Framework for Action on HIV/AIDS . Can the Minister

of Health Services please tell me what is being done to assist community-based

AIDS organizations in helping to prevent the spread of HIV?

Hon. C.

Hansen: The provincial health officer estimates that we spend in excess of

about $100 million a year on programs for prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS

in this province. On a per-capita basis we are the highest in Canada, which is

understandable given that we do have the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS. But I

think the point that the member raises is very important because we continue to

see HIV/AIDS spread in our communities. We continue to see that it is a

challenge not just for the traditional groups that have suffered from HIV/AIDS,

but in fact we see it throughout the whole province geographically, and we see

it through a variety of different communities.

We are

putting money into contracting community-based services — about $12 million a

year. There's about $37 million a year funded through the Centre for Excellence

in HIV/AIDS for their programs, and we continue to put more money into public

health follow-up for both education and partner notification. We will continue

to work on that, and I welcome the ongoing input from the member.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G.

Collins: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I am pleased to

present the reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004, on all amounts

borrowed by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These

reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity in fiscal

2003-04.

[ Page 11204 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply.

[1435]

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:36 p.m.

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

On vote 8:

office of the Premier, $44,129,000.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I don't intend to make any opening statement, but I'm glad to

answer any questions from any members.

MacPhail: I'll take this opportunity to set the stage for my questions to

the Premier from the opposition. With only a year left in the Premier's mandate,

I think it's useful to spend a few moments before I go into that debate

recapping the Premier's record.

Three years

ago the Premier won an overwhelming mandate on a promise of hope and prosperity,

on a promise of government integrity, on a promise to improve health and

education, on a promise of good management. Three years later not only have

those promises not been fulfilled; they have actually been broken. Three years

after being swept to power with the largest majority in history, B.C. is a more

polarized and less confident province than it has been in recent memory.

Unemployment

is higher. Compared to the rest of Canada, paycheques are smaller. Health

wait-lists have skyrocketed. They're at a 26 percent increase and growing.

Labour relations are poisoned, and questions swirl about police raids on the

Legislature, about the B.C. Liberal friends and insiders getting special deals,

and about a Premier that has lost the moral high ground and lost the trust of a

large majority of British Columbians.

The Premier

promised to change politics, transcend old divisions and restore integrity to

government, yet he has failed on all those accounts, reinforcing patterns of

polarization that have infected our political system for far too long. Instead

of seeing in his mandate an opportunity to bring people together around common

goals and shared aspirations for a better society, he has used his mandate to

force a narrow ideological agenda upon this province, pitting British Columbians

against each other in the process — some of which we just saw today from the

Liberal caucus in members' statements.

Instead of

reaching out and listening, he has closed his eyes and ears to the tremendous

anger and frustration his government is causing. He has refused to accept

criticism or to explain his actions. He has refused to admit mistakes or to

change direction. From the broken promise on B.C. Rail to his broken promise on

health care to his broken promise on integrity in government, the Premier has

lost his way, and now it appears he is out of ideas, out of solutions and out of

steam.

The current

session started in a climate of scandal and rising concern about the direction

of this government. Three and a half months later it ends on the same note. The

government's agenda this session is as thin as it is tired. Little that was

brought before us for debate suggests that the Premier has been able to renew

his vision for B.C. or restore confidence in his mandate. Instead we were

treated to minor tinkering and increasingly desperate promises of the coming

prosperity pushed off further and further into the future. The new era promised

has become the new era deferred — now at least to the 2010 games. This is not

what British Columbians voted for, and it is certainly not what they deserve.

[1440]

If politics

is a debate about competing visions of the future, the vision on offer from this

government and this Premier is more of the same — more conflict, more

polarization, more division, and less hope and opportunity for the vast majority

of British Columbians who work hard, pay their taxes and want a compassionate,

fiscally responsible and responsive government in return.

In 364 days

the Premier's mandate will have run its course, and British Columbians will have

a choice between two very different approaches to government and two different

visions of the future: the Premier's fundamentally pessimistic view of the

capacity for British Columbians to work together to achieve positive change and

the other vision of a prosperous, inclusive society — or a new vision that

seeks to transcend old division and that unites British Columbians around common

objectives. This is a government that works explicitly for the few or a

competing vision of a government that works for all; a government that is

exclusive, stubborn and increasingly out of touch or an alternate vision of a

government that makes its first priority to reflect the values of the people it

serves.

In 364 days

British Columbians will have a fundamental choice. The opposition, having

learned from past mistakes, is committed to providing the kind of responsible,

compassionate and modern government that British Columbians are demanding. Mr.

Chair, the countdown to change has begun; 364 days to go. I look forward to the

debate that will ensue. What symbolizes this government's division from the

public is the Premier himself and how the Premier conducts himself in public.

What security services does the Premier receive beyond that provided by the

legislative Sergeant-at-Arms staff?

Hon. G.

Campbell: First, let me respond to some of those opening comments. I

understand that there is, in fact, going to be a choice in 364 days, and I think

one of the critical things about that choice is to enter into a civil debate

about the direction the province is going in and what actually has been

accomplished. The member opposite talks about positive change, and I am proud

[ Page 11205 ]

of the positive changes that this government has brought in for the people of

British Columbia. It's not myself, but it's others.

There are

many, many third parties who have pointed out that, in fact, we are finally back

on track in the province and that we have an opportunity to build a future

that's full of hope and opportunity for British Columbians. Over the last few

weeks I've visited over 50 communities and talked to them about what their goals

are and what their objectives are.

It's

critical, I think, that most people understand that you don't build a positive

future on a foundation of debt and deficits. You don't build a positive future

without bringing British Columbians together, without moving forward on the

basis of their dreams and their goals and objectives. In 64 communities, 64

different times, I've visited towns outside of Vancouver and the capital

regional district.

There is a

new optimism in British Columbia. It's an optimism that's reflected by groups

that are as independent as Moody's, who's pointed…. There's a positive

economic outlook that reflects improved fiscal framework that's been developed

in recent years. There are improved opportunities and excitement in the small

business community of this province. For the first time in ten years we actually

have small business communities and small businesses growing in British

Columbia, at almost 10 percent this year and an expected 10 percent next year.

We have the small business community in British Columbia having more confidence

in their future than any other province in the country.

We also

have a situation where people are recognizing that British Columbia's record for

job creation is, frankly, second to none over 2002-03, and we're looking forward

to an even more impressive 2004. While the member opposite may want to spread

her message of doom and let's go back to the 1990s, I can tell you this, Mr.

Chair. In British Columbia we are moving forward. We are moving forward in every

critical area of government activity.

[1445]

For

example, this is a government, unlike any previous government in the history of

the province — unlike any previous government in the history of the country

— that has said to citizens: "You set the rules for electing

people." The Citizens' Assembly has been recognized, not just in Canada but

around the world, for the initiative this government took, for an undertaking

this government made and for an undertaking this government is following through

on, because we know that's how you restore people's confidence in our public

institutions.

This

government, unlike any previous government, decided that we were going to inform

citizens about when an election would be held. We set an election date so that

the member opposite and all of those who support her can know exactly when the

election will be held and when people will make their choice. They will make a

choice about their future, and that's going to be critical as we move ahead.

Let's look

at some of the things that the member opposite said. She talks about a poisoned

labour climate. Well, when the member opposite's party was in government, I

should point out there were 51 work stoppages in 1999 and 80 in the year 2000.

In 2001 there were 41. When this government had a full year of operation, it was

18. Last year, 2003, it was eight. If you want to talk about the public sector,

I think it's important to remember — although the member opposite would

certainly like us to focus on the minority of negotiations that we weren't able

to complete — there were 37 agreements made between public sector workers and

this government working to build a stronger future for British Columbia and the

people who live here. That's, I believe, the direction that everyone expects us

to take.

The member

opposite talks about health care. Let me tell you that the health reforms we've

made in British Columbia are recognized across the country. When you take 52

agencies and bring them down to six and you start reinforcing and focusing

resources that people send into the system on care for patients, it makes a

difference. There were 38,000 additional procedures that we had last year over

the year before. Those 38,000 additional procedures were for people. They

focused those resources on patients, and that's certainly what we should do.

I think the

member opposite knows, and I think the public knows we are living in a world

where there are significant demographic changes taking place. We have an aging

society, and when you look at one of the most critical services that we have and

that the province provides — health care — we know that aging society

creates additional pressures in the health care system.

We also

have, at the other end of the demographic spectrum, a shrinking number of people

of school age. We have to make sure that we're dealing with them. We're focusing

our resources on those students in the classrooms.

To do that,

we have to have a strong private sector economy. Now, I understand that the

previous government was not nearly as enthusiastic about the private sector

economy as this government is, but I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that we already

know the private sector economy in British Columbia is moving ahead. We know

it's creating new jobs for people. We know it's creating jobs for people in the

mining sector, which was devastated by the last government. We know it's

expanding at an incredible rate in the oil and gas sector. We know, in fact, in

this economy….

I was just

visiting Campbell River the other day, and a fellow came to me and said:

"You know, we've got a whole new set of problems right now." I said:

"What's that?" He said: "People are going to work. We can't find

enough workers to do the work we need in our forest sector." I had the

mayor of a community saying: "For the first time in six years I have people

moving into our community." Instead of people, when they have to move or

decide to move, wondering whether they'll ever be able to sell their home —

the most important asset they have — people now know they can

[ Page 11206 ]

sell their homes. They are getting the resources they need so that they have

control over their lives.

As we move

ahead in the province, we will move ahead with a government that focuses on care

for patients, a government that focuses on creating an education system that's

second to none and a government that focuses on opening up opportunity. Let me

just say that I recognize, as I'm sure the member opposite does, that it's no

small task to get a financial house in order when for over a decade that house

has been mismanaged. It's no small task to rebuild a foundation for the future

when the foundation from the past was devastated by the mismanagement of a

previous government. I recognize that.

Were there

tough choices that we had to make? Of course there were tough choices we had to

make. Were they the right choices to make? We certainly hope they were. We hope

they were the right choices to make, because everyone in the government — as

is everyone in the opposition, I'm sure — is doing their best to do what's

best for British Columbians. We are doing our best to do what's best for British

Columbia families. I can tell you that as we move forward over the next 364 days

and beyond, we're looking forward to engaging British Columbians in a discussion

about the kind of future they want.

They will

have a choice. They can choose to go back to the 1990s. They can choose to go

back to the people who say: "Oh, we've learned; we've learned. Don't worry.

It won't happen again." It's all exactly the same people, with exactly the

same message, with exactly the same amount of selfishness that we saw throughout

the nineties that took our province — a province that I was born in — and

took the hope away from those people.

[1450]

In British

Columbia people are excited about being proud of their communities again.

They're excited about being proud of their jobs if they're in mining again.

They're excited about being proud of their jobs if they're in the forest sector.

They're excited about making sure that they create communities that are

long-term and sustainable and healthy for their families to grow up in. This

government is excited about that too.

MacPhail: Well, I'm glad that the Premier finally had the fortitude to get

up and make an opening statement. He declined until I made one. That's all very

well and good, but could he answer my question, please?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As we canvassed last year in estimates, the budget for the

Premier's security comes from the RCMP police force, and it is not disclosed.

Interjection.

MacPhail: Oh, the Minister of Finance says that nor was it under our

previous government. Believe you me, Mr. Chair, the question never needed to be

asked, because there was no obvious security. The question never needed to be

asked.

Is the

budget going up or down?

Interjections.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I have a certain temptation in how I should answer this question,

but I'm not going to answer it that way.

September 11, 2001, there was a substantial amount of concern raised about

security — not just my security but other people's security. The RCMP do have

security in British Columbia, and they do have a security force that is

responsible for the Premier. They also have one in Ontario. They also have one

— not the RCMP — in the province of Quebec. It's not the RCMP in Ontario;

it's the provincial police force. They also have in Alberta.

Unfortunately,

security is required, according to the RCMP. I follow the directions of the

RCMP. As I said last year, that budget is not disclosed. If the member has

questions which she'd like to ask of the RCMP, they will, I'm sure, tell her

what they can. It's not something that I have available to me or that is

appropriate to disclose.

MacPhail: Isn't it interesting? At the same time that the Premier is

justifying his security expenses because of September 11, 2001, the Finance

minister and the Attorney General are heckling that it's the HEU's fault that

the Premier needs security. Maybe they'd like to get their message straight. The

Finance minister is saying: "It's your friends in the HEU that are causing

the security problem." The Attorney General is back there heckling:

"Let's see. HEU donates to the NDP — security." My gosh, aren't they

helpful? Aren't those two senior ministers of this Premier's cabinet helpful?

The Premier

tries to claim it's about terrorism; that requires increased security. The

Finance minister bully boy and the AG bully boy say…

The

Chair: Member.

MacPhail: …it's the HEU's fault.

The

Chair: Member. Member, please. Your language is unparliamentary. Will you

please retract it.

MacPhail: I retract, Mr. Chair.

The

Chair: Thank you. Proceed.

MacPhail: Let's just be clear. If they're going to have the peanut gallery

here, if the Premier's going to have the peanut….

The

Chair: Member, your terminology is completely unparliamentary. Please try to

maintain the rules of the House.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I will try greatly, and I am

trying greatly. I very much appreciate a Chair who's balanced and fair — very

much.

[ Page 11207 ]

The

Chair: Member, take your seat, please. I do not want to have you question

the Chair or challenge the Chair. You have a full opportunity to follow the

estimates debate here. We are working on vote 8. Please stay focused on vote 8.

MacPhail: Are these services provided by police or through a contract to the

RCMP?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The RCMP set the standards for security, the RCMP are responsible

for the security, and the RCMP direct the security.

MacPhail: What is the area of security that covers the Premier? What are the

areas of responsibility of the Premier that are covered by security?

[1455]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I don't understand the question.

MacPhail: Well, is it the Premier acting in his capacity as Premier, his

capacity as MLA, his capacity inside the province only, outside the province?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The RCMP make judgments as to whether or not they believe it is

necessary for them to be in attendance with the Premier. The security is

provided to the office of the Premier, and as I said last year, it is something

that in fact is not appropriate to disclose.

Let me say

to the member opposite that I understand that the…. I think it's important

that we scrutinize these things, but I also think it's important that we

scrutinize them within the public framework that's established. The Premier's

protection detail that's established by the RCMP is done not to use dollars of

the taxpayer unnecessarily. It's to make sure that the Premier of the province

is protected.

MacPhail: These are taxpayer dollars being spent that weren't spent

previously, so these are legitimate questions.

Has the

Premier received security in working as an MLA?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I am an MLA. There is no question about it. The reason that there

is security provided is because I also hold the office of the Premier.

MacPhail: Does the RCMP provide security to the Premier or to government

members as well as the Premier?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As I understand it, the RCMP would provide security to any

government members that need it. I can't answer for what happens with other

government members. I can tell you that they do provide security and security

advice to myself.

MacPhail: Does the Premier receive security when he's in his Vancouver

constituency office, for instance?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Again, the reason that security is provided…. It's provided by

the RCMP. It's provided to me as Premier of the province, and they make choices

as to where they are providing me security and where they are not. Obviously,

one of the things that they would be concerned about is that security

information be kept by them. That's important, I think, in terms of the task

that they've set for themselves.

The RCMP

themselves have said that it is their responsibility. They accept the

responsibility. If there are questions about security, they should go to the

RCMP, not to me.

MacPhail: Well, I'm not quite sure how the minister would know that the

public knows that or, indeed, that I should know that. I'm going to actually

check the record from last year to see what debate we had about this. The

Premier seems to think that we canvassed all this last year.

Let me ask

this question. The Finance minister and the Attorney General say it's because of

the HEU that the Premier needs security. How does the RCMP know to provide

security? Who does the RCMP liaise with in the Premier's office?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As I'm sure the member opposite is aware, once you're elected,

you're elected seven days a week and 24 hours a day. These matters were not

covered specifically, I don't believe, in my estimates last year. They were

covered extensively in the estimates of the Solicitor General last year.

The RCMP

has said quite clearly that, in fact, if there are questions with regard to

security, they should be directed to the RCMP, not to me. The whole purpose of

the security is to make sure it's there and that it's confidential so that it

can be effective.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I just asked the Premier…. The Premier is saying to

me that the timing and amount of security is up to the RCMP. I do not recall

canvassing these matters before or hearing it discussed in the public at all.

[1500]

Now the

Premier is saying that he's Premier for seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Does

that mean, then, security is provided during that period of time?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I fully recognize and admit that we have security for the Premier.

As I mentioned earlier, if there are specific questions that the member opposite

has with regard to security, I would direct them to the RCMP. They have a

responsibility to provide, and they have accepted the responsibility of

providing that protection for myself. They use their judgment on when it's

provided and how it's provided.

I can't

tell you how they get all of their intelligence. It would be inappropriate for

me to tell you how they get all of their intelligence. I can tell you that I am

guided by their direction and by their recommendations. That is the purpose of

having this. I think it's critical for us to recognize that and reflect on that.

[ Page 11208 ]

MacPhail: This is a substantially new expenditure under this Premier. I'm

quite taken aback that this government doesn't want to answer any of these

questions, like who it is that the RCMP liaises with.

It came as

quite a surprise to the public and the Solicitor General when the Vancouver

police chief said that terrorism was a threat, when he made those comments a few

weeks ago. The provincial government didn't know about that. In fact, it was

quite a controversial statement that the Vancouver police chief made about

terrorism being a threat, and it certainly came as a surprise to the provincial

government cabinet that he was making that statement.

That

surprise expressed led me to the fact…. What is it that the Premier is being

made secure from and tax dollars are being spent on? I thought this was the

perfect time to ask these questions, because I expect that the expenditures are

in the hundreds of thousands of dollars — if not in seven-figure expenditures

— annually. I think the public has a right to know why that is necessary —

not the details.

Of course

everybody wants the Premier and all officials to be secure. To use that as a

reason to say that there is no legitimate area to ask about why the expenditures

or the amount of expenditures is to be unnecessarily adversarial. Mr. Chair, I'm

not allowed to use…. I've been limited in my vocabulary here. The Premier

won't even admit about whether those expenditures are going up or down.

If the

Premier travels out of the province, is there a different protocol from when he

is in the province?

Interjections.

The

Chair: Member, please. Let's keep the debate down between the two members.

Hon. G.

Campbell: What we do is take advice from the RCMP on how they believe the

Premier's protection should be provided. I consistently take advice from the

RCMP. I note that there were almost ten and a half hours of discussion with the

Solicitor General. This could have been canvassed fully there. But really, I

think I've answered the question. If the member opposite has questions and

queries, they can be directed to the RCMP.

I do not

know how the RCMP gathers together its intelligence. I do know that the RCMP

provides advice to us in the Premier's office about what we should do. The RCMP

takes its responsibility seriously, as I hope they would, not just for me but

for other people. I accept their advice, and we accept the service.

[1505]

MacPhail: I will seek the Premier's advice on how I get this information

from the RCMP. Perhaps he could guide me on how to get this information.

Hon. G.

Campbell: Again, the member has every right to ask the RCMP. Any questions

that come up that they feel they can answer will be answered. If they feel they

can't be answered, they won't be answered. But that's their responsibility. I

think that if a public figure — whether that public figure is the Premier of

Alberta or Ontario or Quebec or the Premier of British Columbia — has a

protection detail, we have a responsibility to listen to the advice of the

people that take on the responsibility for that protection. That's what we do

with the RCMP. The RCMP have been very clear. If there are questions, they

should be directed to the RCMP.

R. Masi:

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Masi:

It is my pleasure today to introduce 54 students and 17 adults and their

teachers, Ms. Adams and Ms. Green, from Hellings Elementary in North Delta. And

a fine group of students it is.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: Let me just put on the record. The tactics used by the government

front benches on this are reprehensible, I must say — somehow, through their

heckling, alleging I am threatening the Premier or putting someone at risk by

asking these questions. I say that is just simply unacceptable for them to take

that point of view. We want everyone to be safe. We want everyone, though, to be

able to have access to their politicians. We believe in free and open access to

their politicians when there is no threat. But it is under this Premier that the

security costs have skyrocketed, with no evidence of terrorist activity or

activities of post-9/11 security. His own front benches accused the

rabble-rousers of the HEU as being the problem, including the Attorney General.

All we want

to know is what it is costing taxpayers to have that confrontation continue —

that confrontational point of view. How much is it costing taxpayers for them to

continue to suggest somehow that there is a threat caused by something other

than their own actions?

How does

the Premier travel when he is travelling by air?

Hon. G.

Campbell: It depends, but generally speaking, over the last little while we

have actually been travelling by charter. The charter has allowed us to touch

down in more communities more expeditiously. It allows for not just the staff

complement that are normally with me but also the other cabinet ministers or

whatever, and it is the most cost-effective way of travelling.

MacPhail: How much did the Premier's office spend on travel in '03-04, and

what's the budget for '04-05?

[ Page 11209 ]

[1510]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I apologize, Mr. Chair, and through you to the member. We don't

have the specific breakdown. I can tell you that the budget for '04-05 is

$335,000. For my personal travel up to March 31, '03, it was $118,215, which

included approximately $33,000 for the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations.

MacPhail: The Premier just said that it was more cost-effective to charter a

plane. Well, how does the Premier know that, if he can't even give me the

figures about what he spent or what he is going to spend? Is there a study done

to show that it is more cost-effective?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Let me give the member opposite an example. On Friday I met with

the Lower Mainland Municipal Association, which was meeting in Whistler. I met

with the North Central Municipal Association, which was meeting in Fort Nelson,

and I met with the broadcasters association, which was meeting in Penticton. I

would not have or no one would have been able to, in fact, meet with all of

those groups in a timely way had we not had a charter. The charter carried

myself, my press secretary and my deputy chief of staff. It carried the Minister

of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and his assistant as well. If you

look at those dollars in terms of what the costs would be if we were going by

regular commercial flight, two things would have happened. Number one, we

wouldn't have been able to make the meetings. Number two, it would have been

more expensive.

MacPhail: I remember the Finance minister chiding me for using anecdotal

evidence to justify a larger point — chided me terribly for that. The Finance

minister said: "Oh, she gives a couple of examples, and then she

extrapolates a point from that."

Was there a

cost-benefit analysis done of shifting from commercial travel to charter travel?

I take no position on this. I'm merely asking if there was a cost-benefit

analysis done of it.

[1515]

Hon. G.

Campbell: The office is always aware of the costs and the benefits of each

trip. For example, we did not, obviously, take a charter when we went to

mainland China. We did not take a charter when we went to Guangzhou or when we

went to India. Frankly, the charters are generally taken within the boundaries

of British Columbia because of the situation that we face and, as I mentioned,

because it is both timely and cost-effective. We do look at those things as we

travel around the province.

MacPhail: Is there a contract with a charter for this upcoming fiscal year,

for '04-05?

Hon. G.

Campbell: No. We're always looking for the most cost-effective supplier of

the service, and there are a number of contracts that are available throughout

the province.

MacPhail: How are they tendered?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Out of my scheduling office, there is work done to discover where

we can get the most cost-effective deal. There are discussions that take place

with those people on the basis of the time, availability and cost.

MacPhail: Who is authorized to travel on the private plane?

Hon. G.

Campbell: It depends on the flight, but normally there would be myself, my

press secretary, one RCMP officer and my deputy chief of staff. They would be

the regular component — just so we're clear — depending on the task at hand,

depending on what we're doing. It would depend on who was also in on the flight.

MacPhail: When I asked the Premier about whether any of this is tendered….

Could the Premier tell me the companies that have received business in '03-04

and the amount of business they received?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I don't have that information, but it will be available in Public

Accounts , as the member knows.

MacPhail: I'm always amazed when this government tries to refer me to Public

Accounts . That's actually what estimates are for — for this kind of

information.

What

happens when a contract with a private plane service, a charter service, exceeds

$25,000?

Hon. G.

Campbell: We have indeed chartered with Pacific Coastal, Anderson Air,

London Air and Conquest. Each time a charter is requested, we ask for costs.

I don't

know the answer to this. I don't believe there would be any that have been over

$25,000 for the Premier's office. I can check that for the member, but as the

member knows, the public accounts give all of that information. They should be

completed by the end of June. At this point I don't have that information.

MacPhail: Yeah. It's not going to be that helpful for the Premier to refer

me to Public Accounts . That's only going to annoy me. I know that doesn't

make any difference to him, except that this is the kind of information that is

supposed to be made available during estimates.

The Premier

said that most of his travel is done within B.C. on charter. All of his travel,

or just some of it? What travel, if any, has been done by charter outside

British Columbia?

[ Page 11210 ]

Hon. G.

Campbell: We shared a charter flight with Premier Klein in…. I'm trying to

think of the date. It was for a meeting in Prince Edward Island. I don't recall

the exact date.

MacPhail: And is that it?

Hon. G.

Campbell: To the best of my recollection, yes.

[1520]

MacPhail: When the Premier goes on official business inside British

Columbia, is the plane ever used for side trips either by himself or by

ministers?

Interjection.

MacPhail: Is the plane ever used for side trips beyond what the official

business is or by ministers for either official or personal business?

Hon. G.

Campbell: No charters are used for personal business.

MacPhail: How does the Premier account for that? We've heard of situations

where there's been party business done while the Premier is on these trips. I'm

just checking it out.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I don't understand what the issue is that the member is raising.

When the Premier travels in the province…. I travel in the province; I get to

a destination. I carry out my official business. It may be that at times that

official business is at the end of the day. I may meet with party members. I may

talk with party members. That certainly is done, but the charter is not used to

carry out party business. It's used for public business.

MacPhail: On the itinerary of travel, is the full amount…? Well, let me

ask the Premier: has he, in '03-04 — or for the first six weeks of '04-05 —

engaged in partisan activities after the completion of official business?

Hon. G.

Campbell: There may be evenings on my personal time when I am dealing with

people that are involved with the party. There's no question about that. I would

be the last to deny that. Certainly, when I'm out around the province, I can

tell you that…. I'm sure the member opposite would think that all the time I'm

around the province, I'm actually engaged in partisan business. I am certainly

talking with chambers of commerce. I'm talking with city councils. I'm talking

with community leaders. I'm talking with people in the health care sector and

the education sector. All of those things, I think, are critical to the public

interest.

MacPhail: Yup. I'm not asking the Premier to be defensive at all. I'm just

asking questions.

In filing

for his travel expenses, are there distinctions between official business

expenses and private expenses? How would we obtain that information?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The member opposite can rest assured that at no time would I bill

private expenses. We are explicit about that. It is only public expenses that

are ever billed.

MacPhail: I think the Premier misunderstands me again. Does the Premier file

expenses that show the distinction between private and public?

Hon. G.

Campbell: We file public expenses. That is what's expected; that is what's

done. That is what's reviewed.

MacPhail: When the cabinet went to Alberta last fall — the Premier may

remember that there was a summit in Alberta with the Alberta government under

Premier Klein — how were expenses calculated for that? How did travel occur?

What expenses were incurred? How much did the trip cost?

[1525]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm sure the member opposite is aware that I don't have all that

detail on hand. My recollection, actually, is that I flew to that — what do

you call it? — summit, the Alberta–British Columbia joint cabinet meeting,

commercially. If the member wants more information on that, she can get that

information in excruciating detail through the freedom-of-information and

privacy process.

MacPhail: In fact, it's on the basis of an FOI request that I'm asking these

questions, because they were not answered by the FOI request. These kinds of

questions were denied because they were "out of scope" in our FOI

request. Clearly, we didn't get the wording exactly right for it.

How much

did the summit with Ralph Klein cost? I think that's a legitimate question. It

was made a big deal by the Premier. He actually decided to do it while the House

was sitting, even though he could have easily done it a couple of weeks before

or during the break. How much did the summit cost B.C. taxpayers?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As I mentioned, I don't have that information. The member can

certainly ask through the FOI for all that information to be gathered. Let me

tell you, though, Mr. Chair, and let me tell the member opposite that at the

Alberta–British Columbia summit, in fact, we'll save B.C. taxpayers

significant, significant resources. We have already got some joint projects

going ahead on Highway 1; we're looking at joint projects on Highway 16. We're

looking at the benefits of joint purchasing for textbooks; we're looking at the

benefits of joint tourism promotion. We're looking at the benefits of working

together and expanding oil and gas and energy opportunities in Alberta and in

British Columbia. There are substantial

[ Page 11211 ]

benefits that will be gleaned from that activity. We will be meeting again in

Prince Rupert in a matter of days to discuss ongoing working together between

British Columbia and Alberta.

I don't

know the precise costs — the travel expenses and the hotel expenses, for

example — of the Alberta–B.C. summit. But again, those costs can be garnered

and gleaned and delivered upon receipt of an FOI request with specifics.

MacPhail: Mr. Chair, why is the Premier referring me to public accounts or

FOI? What makes that an open and transparent process of estimates?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I would assume that the member would like complete information. I

think the member clearly knows there are many ways we can assure that the public

has the information that's required. Public accounts presents that information

in its final audited form so that the public can understand that and she can. In

terms of freedom of information and privacy, it's particularly there to make

sure that detailed requests can be properly gathered together and the answers

can be delivered in a public and open way. I'm sure the opposition member will

take advantage of that.

J. Kwan:

Part of the estimates process, of course, is to go through, with the Premier and

with respective ministers, their budgets — how much they're allocating in each

of the areas, how much they're spending in each of the areas, what was the

spending in the previous year. It is an opportunity for all MLAs to canvass

these kinds of questions with the Premier.

The

questions that the opposition leader has put to the Premier to date are valid

questions within the estimates process. They're completely within the scope. The

Premier, of course, has been advised by the opposition leader that we'd tried to

get some of that information through the FOI process and had been unsuccessful

in getting some of that information.

Having said

that, putting that process aside, through the estimates process the Premier

should be responsible for his area of spending in his own ministry. In the

Premier's office — in this instance, around travel — how much were

particular costs, or where did it occur? How much were the costs for each trip?

Those are valid questions — spent within the Premier's own budget.

For the

Premier to refer the matter to public accounts, as the Chair of Public Accounts,

I actually think the Premier should be able to do much better than that and

should be forthcoming with information in the estimates process, where these

questions are put to him appropriately.

[1530]

Let's try

again. Let's give another opportunity here for the Premier to be open and

accountable and to be transparent, as he would like to claim that he is. How

much money was spent on the trip with his cabinet colleagues to Calgary the

first week of the House sitting?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I have not questioned for a moment the opposition's questions. I

have told the opposition where they can get the answers to those questions. The Public

Accounts is one place for specific details of specific trips. That

information can be explicitly acquired through freedom of information. The

budget for travel in 2003-04 was $335,000. The budget for travel in 2004-05 is

$335,000. My personal travel was approximately $85,000 in the year that ended

That

information is there. It's openly available to people. You know, I can't add to

the answers that I have already given.

J. Kwan:

How many trips has the Premier made over the course of the year and to what

destinations? Were they charter flights, were they commercial flights, and who

went with him — for the course of the year, for last year and the beginning of

this year, for the fiscal year?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I think I've answered that question. It is not unusual for us to

travel within the province through a charter. I am normally accompanied by my

deputy chief of staff and executive assistant, by my press secretary, by at

least one RCMP officer and, on many occasions, by cabinet ministers who are

specifically involved in announcements being made or meetings being held

throughout the province.

As I

mentioned, our budget in 2003-04 was $335,000. I'm glad to go through for the

member a number of the trips that I can recall. I certainly don't have a list of

all of the trips that I have made in the last little while. To give the member

opposite an idea, in the month of February of this year I visited Prince George,

Kitimat, Terrace. In Kitimat we were dealing with the Summer Games. We visited

Smithers, Houston, Dawson Creek, Groundbirch, Chetwynd, Moberly Lake, Hudson

Hope, Fort St. John, Richmond, Surrey, Abbotsford, New Westminster, Duncan. By

the way, Mr. Chair, I should tell you we didn't take a charter flight to New

Westminster; we drove to New Westminster. Duncan, Port Alberni, Kelowna — all

were travelled to in the month of February.

J. Kwan:

I'm looking for those kinds of specifics from the Premier on all of his trips

— those that are within British Columbia as well as those outside of the

province; with whom he travelled; and what sort of flight arrangements, if they

were required, the Premier used for those trips.

I can

appreciate that the Premier does not have all of that information at his

fingertips, but the opposition would like to receive a list from the Premier

regarding his trips and with whom he travelled and which minister for the public

record.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I will endeavour to get the information for the member opposite

that she is entitled to under freedom of information. I think it's a strange

request, but I'm glad to provide that information.

[ Page 11212 ]

J. Kwan:

It is often the case, too, that where travel has taken place with another

ministry or another minister, costs are shared. I would also like the Premier to

identify whether or not costs have been shared, If so, what is the portion that

has been cost-shared with another ministry?

[1535]

MacPhail: I find it interesting that the Premier says we can get these kinds

of specifics under the public accounts. Of course he knows that's not true. You

can't get the details per trip. On his trip to Calgary with his cabinet, what

events occurred that were not events related to meetings with the Alberta

cabinet or government?

Hon. G.

Campbell: My recollection of the meeting in Calgary was that we went to

Calgary and met with Premier Klein and a number of his cabinet colleagues in an

evening for dinner. We had the cabinet meeting, and we then came home. That's my

recollection.

I know the

members opposite regularly ask for my calendar. That outlines the events that I

go to. I can't say what everyone does when they're at events like that, but I

can tell you that's what I was doing. They have that information, and it has

been made available to them upon their request in the past.

MacPhail: I'm not sure what the Premier is talking about — about us

regularly asking for his calendar. This Premier refuses to give his calendar —

ever. So I'm not sure what the Premier…. He's making all these allegations

about this great access that we have to information, and it turns out he is

wrong. We can't have any of that access.

Were there

any meetings with industry representatives whose headquarters are in Alberta

during that trip to meet with the Alberta cabinet?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Is the member asking whether I met with anybody during the trip to

Alberta?

Interjection.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I think I outlined what I did during the trip to Alberta. I

arrived in Alberta. The Alberta government hosted us to an evening meal. We

attended the meal. I went to my room. The next morning we had a cabinet meeting,

and I then came home. That's my recollection of the visit and the cabinet

meeting with Alberta.

MacPhail: I take it that the Premier thinks we're being repetitive here.

However, our FOI request clearly said that side trips or activities unrelated to

the cabinet business were out of scope. Is the Premier now saying that there

were no meetings with various industry representatives during that period of

time, either of himself…? Clearly, he is saying no, he didn't. But what about

his cabinet?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Mr. Chair, first let me say I'm not trying to be argumentative

with the member at all. She is welcome to ask the questions.

I can't

tell you what the cabinet did following the dinner with the Alberta cabinet. I

can tell you that the cabinet — those who were with me — was there at the

dinner. Those who were with me were there at the cabinet meeting, and my

recollection is that most of them travelled home at approximately the same time

I did.

Did anyone

meet with anyone from Alberta, with friends that they might have in Alberta? I

don't know. Did the Minister of Energy and Mines maybe meet with some people in

the oil and gas industry? I actually can't answer those questions, but I can

tell you that the joint meeting with the cabinet of Alberta was beneficial to

British Columbians. It was, I think, the first step in what will be many steps

of working together to try and assure that British Columbia's economic future

and fortunes are enhanced, to try and assure that we're meeting the needs of the

province across the north.

I can still

recall the first time that I met Premier Klein in Vancouver after he was

Premier. He talked about the exceptional opportunity he thought Prince Rupert

presented. That's great for us. The Prince Rupert port is going to be a huge

opportunity for the northern part of our province. It certainly is going to be

an enormous opportunity for Prince Rupert.

In terms of

what other cabinet ministers did, I can't answer the question. I can tell you

that from my perspective, my recollection of the trip was the dinner, a night's

sleep, a cabinet meeting and a trip home.

MacPhail: What written confirmation do we have of agreements between Alberta

and British Columbia arising out of that joint cabinet meeting?

[1540]

Hon. G.

Campbell: I believe we had a number of MOUs that came out of the joint

B.C.–Alberta cabinet meeting. One was an MOU on transportation. I referred to

that earlier. There was a savings in the millions of dollars in terms of some

joint weigh scales that we were doing. There was an MOU on tourism and the

potential for developing circle routes through Alberta and British Columbia.

There was an MOU on health care. There was an MOU on purchasing textbooks for

our schools in British Columbia. Those were all released at the time.

I'm glad to

get the MOUs for the member if she would like them.

MacPhail: What's been the status of the MOUs since October? Could he report

MOU by MOU?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Progress has been made in a number of areas. In transportation,

we've moved forward to the design stage for the weigh stations. Instead of

having two weigh stations, there will be one that will meet the needs of British

Columbia as well as Alberta. In terms of the common signage, we felt it made

[ Page 11213 ]

sense to have one sign telling people what was taking place. We're moving

forward with regard to that. Those should be established relatively quickly.

They've gone through that process so there are electronic signs that will inform

motorists of what's taking place in British Columbia or Alberta.

In terms of

e-purchasing, that is proceeding. There is still work being done on that with

the mutual Ministries of Education. The work that has been done in terms of the

northwest corridor continues, in terms of both the tourism development of the

northwest corridor and the potential for the Prince Rupert port.

There will

be a number of initiatives that we will, hopefully, be able to bring to fruition

when we meet with the Alberta cabinet in Prince Rupert; I think it's later this

month. So we have made some significant and, I think, real progress with regard

to that.

MacPhail: Where is the weigh station?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The initial weigh station is Highway 1 in the Kicking Horse

Canyon, and I think there's a second one that has been proposed for Highway 16.

There may be a third one that's being proposed for Highway 3.

MacPhail: I assume all of these weigh stations will be on the British

Columbia side. Where are they?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I can't be specific about which side of the border the weigh

stations are on. The weigh stations will be put in the place that is the safest,

most convenient and cost-effective for the motorists. They will meet the needs

of British Columbia as well as the needs of Alberta.

MacPhail: What did the MOU say? Are these weigh stations on the Alberta side

that will serve British Columbia? I'm trying to figure out what the benefit is

here to British Columbia. So of the three weigh stations that are planned, how

many will be on the British Columbia side, creating jobs for British Columbia?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The MOU does not go specifically into detail of location. The MOU

says that our Ministries of Transportation will work together to maximize the

benefits to British Columbia and Alberta. I believe the estimated savings in

terms of capital was approximately $1 million for British Columbia in terms of

replacing the weigh station that we were having to do and an ongoing operating

savings of around $100,000 a year.

[1545]

I want to

be clear, though, to the member opposite that that's my recollection. In terms

of the detail of that, I would be glad to get the member, as I mentioned, both

the MOUs and the details of the progress we've made with regard to the MOUs.

MacPhail: Yes, I will take the minister up on that offer.

Are those

savings — capital savings and operating savings — because Alberta is paying

for the costs of a weigh station on the B.C. side? Or is it that there will be

no weigh station on the B.C. side and that Alberta will offer the services and

create the jobs? Which is it?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The short answer is that both the province of Alberta and the

province of British Columbia will be recognizing a savings by working together.

As I mentioned, I think the savings will be on the order of $1 million in

capital by us combining our needs — by looking at our needs and seeing where

we have common needs and where we can move forward and do better for British

Columbians as well as Albertans. We expect to save about $1 million. Alberta

probably expects to save about $1 million.

I think the

sort of commonsense answer to this question is…. You can build two

state-of-the-art weigh stations to meet one need, or you can build one

state-of-the-art weigh station to meet one need. We decided to build one. We

decided to do it in concert between the Ministry of Transportation in Alberta

and the Ministry of Transportation in British Columbia. I think that's actually

what people would expect us to do.

There are

true savings for British Columbia in capital. There are true savings for British

Columbia in operation. I'm sure there are true savings for Alberta in capital

and in operation, or they wouldn't have agreed to it.

MacPhail: I assume that because the Premier knows of the savings, he knows

where the weigh stations are going to be. Where are the weigh stations going to

be, or when will we know? The Premier stands up and says there are going to be

all these savings, and yet, "Oh, but I'm sorry; we're not going to give you

any specifics" — likes to announce the fairyland good news but not the

details. I mean, is it that difficult?

Well, let

me ask this. How far down the road are these anticipated savings so that we'd

actually know where the weigh stations are going to be?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Again let me say to the member opposite that we are glad to

provide her with the MOU. As I mentioned earlier, they are moving to design, to

a request for proposal. The proposal will be explicit. Was it done the day we

said: "Let's get together and see if we could manage this"? The answer

is no.

What we

agreed was that we would bring together this opportunity, we would review it, we

would go to request for proposal, and we would build the facility where it was

the most cost-effective on behalf of both British Columbians and Albertans. It's

exactly what we would expect it to be.

When the

Ministries of Transportation have completed their review and moved forward with

the request for proposal, I am sure it will designate where the buildings should

be built, where the weigh station should be built and how they will be

delivered. We will then get a request for proposal that will be public.

[ Page 11214 ]

The member opposite and all the members of the public will have a chance to

see it.

When this

memorandum of understanding was signed, the estimates were that we would save

approximately $1 million in capital and approximately $100,000 in operations. We

will get those final numbers when we've completed the project. We are in the

midst of doing that now.

The member

opposite said to me: "Can you tell us exactly where it is?" I can tell

you it's in the Kicking Horse area and the Dawson Creek area that we're looking

at joint operations. We think they will be beneficial. The MOU was signed

between British Columbia and Alberta providing for joint operations of weigh

scales at the border.

Now, you

know, if we're looking at Highway 1, there are some places close to the border

where I'm sure that weigh scale will be. For the joint Golden facility, a design

consultant is developing a project plan for that joint facility, and it will be

at Golden. That is in British Columbia.

There are

13 potential sites along the Highway 1 corridor, I have just been informed. They

were evaluated, and a preferred site location has been agreed to in the Donald

area adjacent to the Big Bend Highway 23 kilometres west of Golden. Ongoing

discussions are taking place between the B.C. Solicitor General's staff and the

Alberta commercial vehicle staff to identify specific needs related to the new

facility, including site layout and building design criteria.

[1550]

Discussions

are ongoing with stakeholders — including the town of Golden, the

Columbia-Shuswap regional district, the Golden and Area Community Economic

Development Society and the B.C. Trucking Association — to identify issues and

concerns related to relocating the scale. A public open house has been scheduled

in Golden for May 20, 2004. Upon agreement of the final design by both

jurisdictions, construction will be tendered approximately in August of this

year, with completion scheduled for the summer of 2005.

MacPhail: That's great. Thank you for the information. I really appreciate

it. That's what these discussions are all about, so thank you to the staff.

Now what

about textbook purchases? That's an interesting concept because, of course,

curricula are different between Alberta and British Columbia. How is that MOU

working on textbook purchases?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Let me table the memorandum of understanding between British

Columbia's and Alberta's Ministries of Transportation.

With regard

to the textbook operations, it's important to note that it is a…. In terms of

that, it's an optional arrangement for the people of….

Excuse me,

Mr. Chair. If you're going to give the details of that, if you don't mind

getting me a copy of it as well, so that I can answer it.

School

boards will have the opportunity to join with Alberta in what is a special

volume purchasing arrangement. There's no mandatory requirement here. If there

is an opportunity for school boards to save resources, they will be able to.

There is no requirement for a particular textbook. It's an opportunity for them

to use a purchasing facility which may save them money.

MacPhail: Could the Premier provide us with details of the Prince Rupert

meeting — when it is and what's the agenda?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I believe the meeting in Prince Rupert is around the 25th of this

month. I'll confirm that for the member tomorrow if she's interested in that.

Some of the items we will be discussing for certain…. We're in Prince Rupert

for a reason. As I mentioned, it was the province of Alberta who actually….

Well, I'll look into that.

The Prince

Rupert port is an opportunity for us to open up that port in terms of

containerization. It's an opportunity for us to open the port for cruise ship

facilities. As the member opposite may know, this year cruise ship activities

are up ten times over last year. That's a positive economic sign for their

community.

I just got

a note here that the meeting is on the 26th of this month, Mr. Chair.

We will

also be preparing ourselves for the meeting with the western Premiers, which

will take place in June. We will be discussing the northern corridor in more

ways than simply the Prince Rupert port. The connections along Highway 16, the

Yellowhead Highway and the opportunities that presents for communities

throughout British Columbia as well as for opportunities in Alberta….

We're going

to focus quite a bit on ports themselves, on port competitiveness. There's a lot

of opportunity there for Prince Rupert to pick up on some of the benefits, I

think, from servicing the needs of prairie farmers. That's one of their goals

with containerization. As the member knows, we're looking at about a $30 million

contribution to the containerization efforts that Prince Rupert is doing.

[1555]

I'm sure we

will have a discussion and an update on the BSE file — what's taking place

with that, how we're able to manage it, what we can do that will help us move

forward with regard to that.

There will

be a significant part of the meeting where we will discuss health care. As the

member may know, the Council of the Federation has established a major focus on

health care reform and opportunities for the future to build a long-term,

sustainable Canada Health Act that builds on the competitive advantages that the

Canada Health Act provides us and that creates opportunities for us to deal with

issues like human resources, technology growth, Pharmacare and the cost controls

of those issues. That will be critical in the long term as we work with whoever

is in the federal government to try and assure that the Canada health system is

there for the people who live here.

[ Page 11215 ]

There will

be ample opportunity for us to have a great number of discussions, including

updates on the memorandums of understanding we agreed to last year.

MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the Premier's office could provide us with

those MOUs in time for tomorrow's estimates on those discussions so that we can

have more discussion. I'm very interested in seeing what the MOUs dealt with

around the Prince Rupert port, and I will not be able to ask questions without

the MOU pertaining to that. Is it possible for the Premier to provide those for

tomorrow?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The MOUs were available and were public. I'm sure we can gather

them together. Let me say that the Prince Rupert port specifically was not part

of the agenda last time. It is part of the agenda that we will be talking about

in the meeting that is coming up on the 26th.

MacPhail: When the Premier referred to cruise ship traffic being up by ten

times — so that's like a 1,000 percent increase — is he referring to in

Prince Rupert? The only

article I read was that a major cruise ship line was

doing nothing but a technical docking there.

Hon. G.

Campbell: In Prince Rupert there has been a tenfold increase in cruise ship

passengership that they're expecting this year.

MacPhail: Okay, I'm sorry — expecting? So could the Premier give the exact

numbers, please?

Hon. G.

Campbell: No, I don't have the exact numbers. I'm glad to get that

information for the member.

MacPhail: Okay. Could I also ask the Premier…? Well, the Premier said

there was no MOU on the Prince Rupert port. Is the province of British Columbia

making a proposal to the Alberta government regarding the Prince Rupert Port

Authority? I'm not asking for the details. I'm asking if they're going to be

making a proposal, because of course as you know, Mr. Chair, the province is

contributing, I think, $17 million to an upgrade of the Prince Rupert Port

Authority. This government is relying on about another $50 million from the

federal government before any activity can start. Is there any proposal being

made to the Alberta government around cost-sharing for the Prince Rupert Port

Authority?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, the Alberta government has for a number of

years been interested in the opportunities that are presented by the northern

corridor. The northern corridor is both a highway corridor and a rail corridor.

It is potentially a tourism corridor as well. Certainly, I'm sure the people in

Alberta would be glad to see cruise ships, people disembarking from cruise ships

and deciding to drive across our north to the north of Alberta.

We have

funded a joint economic opportunity study with Alberta in terms of the northern

corridor. We will have a chance to review that study with Alberta and to see if

there is mutual benefit in British Columbia and Alberta moving forward together.

That certainly will be part of the discussions we have in Prince Rupert.

[G. Trumper in the chair.]

MacPhail: Can the Premier make available to us the agenda for the meeting on

May 26?

[1600]

Hon. G.

Campbell: The agenda will be made available with the media advisory before

the meeting on the 26th. I should inform the member that the MOUs that we have

been discussing are on line. They were announced and put on line on October 8,

MacPhail: Well, we'll certainly do our best to go on line and get it. I'm

sure that we've got resources equal to the Premier's office, or one would expect

— the way this government treats us, referring us to everything — that they

assume the same thing. Unfortunately, it's not true.

Now, the

service plan has an interesting change in it. No, I'm sorry — not the service

plan. It's actually from the estimates description of the Premier's office

relating to the public affairs bureau. Here's how the vote description for the

public affairs bureau read last year: "Transfers may be provided to Crown

corporations, ministries, other levels of government, special offices and

private bodies for advertising and other communications-related

activities." That was part of the vote description for the public affairs

bureau. That line is no longer there in this year's vote description. Why?

Hon. G.

Campbell: If the member could just repeat what's been removed, I can have

another look at it, but my answer at this point is that there is no reason I'm

aware of. I imagine it was a technical reason that was established by the EFO

for Management Services.

MacPhail: The vote description last year for the public affairs bureau read:

"Transfers" — meaning transfers from the public affairs bureau

budget — "may be provided to Crown corporations, ministries, other levels

of government, special offices and private bodies for advertising and other

communications-related activities." That's been removed.

The reason

I'm asking this question is because previously the government made a big deal

that all communications funds from the ministries and public bodies and Crown

corporations — well, not Crown corporations, but the ministries' direct public

service communications funds — had been relegated to the public affairs

bureau. Last year's line was to then suggest that some of the money relegated to

the public affairs bu-

[ Page 11216 ]

reau could be transferred to these other bodies, but that the communications

budget — the public affairs budget — across government was within the public

affairs bureau. In fact, we hear the Minister of Health Services stand up day

after day saying: "Oh, the millions of dollars that the government is

spending on health advertising doesn't come out of the Health Services budget;

it comes out of the public affairs bureau budget."

[1605]

With the

removal of this line that talks about transfers from the public affairs bureau

— the removal that there are now no constraints — it leads me to ask whether

there are other areas within government expenditures, other areas in other

ministries, where they have direct funding from their ministries or public

bodies for work that was previously done within the public affairs bureau

budget.

Hon. G.

Campbell: If the question that the member opposite is trying to get to is

whether we have moved dollars out of the public affairs budget, the answer is

no. We have not moved dollars out of the public affairs budget.

MacPhail: Thank you for that, but that's not the question. The question is:

is this government saying that all communications expenditures across government

are contained within the public affairs bureau budget for '04-05?

Hon. G.

Campbell: There has been no change in the policy of the government. All

communication that's done for ministries is done within the PAB budget.

MacPhail: That's good to know. Thank you very much for that.

How much of

the public affairs bureau budget is being spent on advertising in '04-05?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The advertising budget for '04-05 is the second lowest it has been

in 15 years. It is approximately $11.9 million.

MacPhail: So $11.9 million in advertising in '04-05. How much of the public

affairs bureau budget is being spent on the Spirit of 2010 advertising campaign?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I don't have the individual breakdowns for campaigns, but I can

tell the member opposite that last year's budget was $19.5 million. It was spent

on fact-based information and awareness campaigns in the order of about $15.9

million. This year, as I mentioned, it is $11.9 million. There was about $2.5

million reallocated to provide various grants for communications activities,

including the Council on Canadian Health Awareness, the 2010 business summit and

the Picture B.C. campaign with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. There were

additional costs that were available for forestry revitalization and Achieve

B.C. community information tours.

[1610]

There were

a number of initiatives that were undertaken. The Spirit of 2010 campaign was

one of them. Achieve B.C. was another. The forestry revitalization program was

another. That information is not available for me today, but as I've said before

to the member opposite, information is available in public accounts and will be

confirmed, I imagine, by the end of next month. Also, if there is specific

information that she requests us to gather together, we're glad to do that

through freedom of information.

MacPhail: I can't believe it. We're referred to FOI, and we're referred to

public accounts. Just reverse the roles for a moment to when this Premier

was in opposition and, if a minister dared say that to him, how he would react.

By the way,

it was under the Doug Walls report that the minister and the Premier referred us

to freedom of information, because he was only offering the conclusions. We'll

get to that — putting his words right back at him, right back….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, please. Order, please.

MacPhail: The Minister of Children and Family Development says that we

didn't make FOI requests. We made FOI requests every day to her ministry.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Member, I would ask that the debate take place between the Premier

and the Leader of the Opposition.

MacPhail: Oh no, let's keep going. I want these words on the record. I want

them.

We have the

FOI requests right here, Madam Chair. Every 48 hours we were forced to file an

FOI request to the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Why? Because the

Premier said, "File an FOI request. We'll release the conclusions, but you

file an FOI request," so we started. Here they are. I can hardly wait to

produce them for the Premier.

Interjection.

MacPhail: I just love it. The Minister of Children and Family Development

doth protest too much. Here's what….

Interjection.

The

Chair: Order, please. Order, please.

MacPhail: I love how the senior cabinet members come in and assist the

Premier in his estimates. I just love it.

[ Page 11217 ]

The Premier

said, for the Doug Walls report: "File an FOI request." So we did.

That was very helpful. He was only going to give the conclusions. Then we

started filing FOI requests. We'll be happy to put these in front of the

Premier, because we're going to be asking him specific questions about those FOI

requests.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Could we please have order.

MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the Minister of Children and Family

Development is being so outrageously defensive. I'm not quite sure. Is she

nervous that we're going to ask questions about the Doug Walls report? I'm not

quite sure what she's so nervous about, but surely the Premier should be a

little bit embarrassed by his senior cabinet members who have already upset

estimates, not once but thrice.

Hon. C.

Clark: You mean upset you.

MacPhail: Yes, actually, that is true. The Minister of Children and Family

Development's outrageous behaviour is upsetting me. That is absolutely true. Her

outrageous misleading of the House about FOI requests is upsetting me.

Actually,

the Minister of Children and Family Development was heckling across the floor

that we never filed an FOI request. Shall I list them?

Interjection.

MacPhail: "You never filed an FOI request" is what she heckled

across the floor. Maybe the minister would like to stand up and correct the

record, then.

[1615]

Well, isn't

the Premier being helped by his Deputy Premier? I'm sure he's overwhelmed.

Here's what we started filing, and we'll get into it — FOI requests as far

back as January. We were filing them every 48 hours. That's because the Premier

directed us to file FOI requests. Shameful. Now he's directing us to file FOI

requests on media expenditures. Well, let's ask the Premier directly: what are

the campaigns planned for the advertising, of the $11.9 million? I couldn't tell

whether he was referring to campaigns from '03-04 or '04-05. What are the

campaigns for '04-05?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As I said, the budget that's been established for facts-based

information awareness programs is $11.9 million. We would expect that we would

be providing information to the people of British Columbia on health care, on

education and the opportunities that are being created in education. We would

expect that we would be doing some information campaigns with regard to cultural

diversity and the economy in the regions of the province. We think those are

critical campaigns to be undertaken. People have said quite clearly to us that

they would like that information, and we intend to provide it to them.

MacPhail: Well, I thought that when a minister, including the Premier, gets

approval for his budget — like $11.9 million for advertising — they actually

have to justify it to Treasury Board. I'm sure it's not a global number. I'm

sure Treasury Board doesn't do things that differently than it has over the last

50 years. So is the Premier suggesting…? He didn't mention any advertising

around the 2010 Olympics in that list. Is there no campaign planned for

expenditure on the 2010 Olympics out of that $11.9 million?

Hon. G.

Campbell: I can assure the member opposite that Treasury Board does an

extremely diligent job in reviewing the programs that are put before it. That's

why this year we have the second-lowest budget for advertising in the last 15

years in the province. It's about half of what the NDP's budget was even a

decade ago.

I think the

issue for us is: will we be providing information opportunities for the public?

The answer is yes. Where are the areas that we would likely focus that on over

the next year? I can tell you at this point that I would anticipate there will

be information provided on health care, as there has been in the past. There

will be information provided on education, as there has been in the past. There

will be information provided with regard to the diversity of the province and

what we have to offer. We are working with the UBCM on the Picture B.C.

campaign. That's obviously important as we start to promote the province in

terms of tourism and other opportunities. I think that's critical.

[1620]

I can tell

you and tell the member opposite that the tourism industry has specifically

asked for us to go out and tell people about what's taking place in British

Columbia, about the tourism product that we have here. Is there a specific

campaign at this point that's designed for the 2010 Winter Olympics? The answer

is no. As the member opposite I'm sure knows, the 2010 Olympics are under the

auspices of VANOC. They will be doing their own program with regard to that. We

did do a Spirit of 2010 summit with businesses, particularly small businesses

from across the province, to talk to them about how they could plug into the

procurement opportunities made available by the 2010 Winter Olympic Games.

I should

say to you, Madam Chair, that what we have been informed by literally every

jurisdiction that's hosted the games is that the earlier you get started on

looking at the opportunities and how you can build on them, the better off you

are. Do I intend to stop talking about the Olympics? No. Is there an advertising

campaign that is proposed right now for 2004-05 to talk about the Olympics? Not

specifically. But certainly there may well be opportunities to talk about

British Columbia, particularly outside of British Columbia.

We want to

attract investors. We know, for example, that the campaign in California has

generated a significant amount of interest. It has generated interest because

British Columbia happens to be one of the

[ Page 11218 ]

fastest-growing technology centres in North America. We have some of the most

successful biotechnology companies in North America right here in British

Columbia. People like to hear about what's going on in British Columbia, and

certainly they're not going to know unless we give them the message.

The message

is that we're open for investment. We've got a great place to live. We've got an

exceptional health care system. We've got an education system for their kids. We

are going to take that message out, because we are going to attract investment

— unlike the last government, which drove literally thousands of people out of

our province and took us from a have province to a have-not province.

It takes a

lot of work to overcome the brand that the last government gave us. The last

government gave us a brand of not welcoming investment. They gave us a brand of

saying British Columbia is closed to business. We intend to open it up. We have

been opening it up. We haven't created more jobs than any other jurisdiction in

Canada because we've been hiding our light under a bushel. We're going to get

out there and tell people that British Columbia is a great place to invest, a

great place to live and a great place to raise your family, because that's the

kind of province we live in.

MacPhail: The Premier just said the campaigns were very successful. Based on

what measure? How much did it cost? What was the benefit?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As I said to the member earlier, the budget for last year was

$15.9 million, and the measure is that for the first time we have people

returning to British Columbia. For the first time we are up in investment

intention in British Columbia. We have small businesses growing at over 9

percent with an expectation that we'll grow at over 10 percent in the year to

come. The measurements are that our small business community in British Columbia

has more confidence in British Columbia than any other small business community

in the country. Those are measures of success.

We're glad

that we're taking information out to people outside of our province, and we're

glad that people are noticing British Columbia, because it's benefiting British

Columbians in terms of jobs and opportunities for the future.

MacPhail: I'm actually asking for some specifics, not rhetoric. The Premier

said, for instance, that the California campaign worked. When we were in

government, we advertised in California. I don't know what the Premier is

getting so divisional about. Perhaps he has been upset by his Deputy Premier and

her outrageous behaviour.

I'm just

asking for specifics. There's no need to be defensive or so partisan. I'm just

asking what the specifics are on the cost benefit. For instance, I note the B.C.

Progress Board report. It's the minister's own group reporting on this, and he

said how great everything is going. Well, he referred to the California

campaign, and here's what the Progress Board reported about activity outside of

British Columbia.

We're

eighth for exports at the end of '03. We're sixth for business investments at

the end of '03. On research and development we're fourth and fifth.

Hon. C.

Clark: Got any current statistics?

MacPhail: These are from the B.C. Progress Board report of last week. I

don't know whether I can make it any more current than last week, and it is a

government document, so that's what your own Progress Board reports.

[1625]

I know that

the government was going to rely on this as being a document of great success,

so that's the document I'm using as well. I don't know whether we can get any

more current than the end of '03 by the Progress Board report. I'm sure if there

were more current stats, they would have published them from last week.

I think

it's important to advertise too. I absolutely do. I think it's important that we

know that our advertising is working. For instance, when the Premier announced

an Olympics outreach and a B.C. outreach, I recall him saying in 2003 that the

advertising campaign was going to be outside of British Columbia. Yet — I

don't know — I saw it inside British Columbia. I know that the government

always likes to mock me about my travels, but I'm pretty sure of where I am when

I watch certain ad campaigns, and that was advertised inside British Columbia.

How does

the Premier do an analysis from the public affairs bureau office about cost

benefit for advertising?

Hon. G.

Campbell: With regard to the Progress Board, I think it's always a good idea

to read the entire report — not selectively read it. It's clear that we had

strong indicators in December 2003.

Let me just

go back for a moment. The Progress Board was called a progress board because we

realized that one of the things we were going to have to do was move the

province forward from the dismal hole that the NDP had created for the people

who lived here throughout the 1990s. We realized it wasn't going to be something

that happened overnight. There isn't some way you can flick a switch and all of

a sudden things are turned on.

In the most

recent report that we have, we know, for example, that for real disposable

income we are third place in Canada. We know it's important for us to know that

we are doing incredibly well in terms of the marginal tax rates. We know that

for university completion we're number two. We know that environmental and

health quality has remained number one. Those are important indicators for us.

I think the

issue that's important for the member opposite to realize is that as the

Progress Board moves forward, we will have a continuing build of informa-

[ Page 11219 ]

tion, and we'll see the kind of progress that we're making.

There is no

question that in 2003 there was significant progress made in British Columbia.

For the first time in six years we had a net in-flow of population. I think it's

kind of interesting to listen to this member talk about what she sees as

happening or not happening. But let me tell you, Madam Chair, that we watched as

under her government literally thousands of British Columbians left the

province. They left the province in search of opportunity. They left the

province because her government drove them out of the province.

I can tell

you it takes a lot of work to tell people that British Columbia has changed and

that we're ready to move forward again. The fact of the matter is that we have

seen an increase in the number; 2,100 additional people came to British Columbia

in 2003 than left. We've watched that for the first time in six years, we have

substantial increase in investment in the forest industry. We have an increased

number of people in small business.

I think

what's important to note is that as we look to the future of British Columbia,

communities across this province have a new sense of optimism about what they

can accomplish, about what they can do. If you look at the resort sector, you

can see it growing in virtually every part of the province. If you look at the

forest sector, we saw an 18 percent increase in forestry investment last year.

If you look at the oil and gas sector, we saw a 56 percent increase in the

number of wells drilled last year.

We have

people in the oil and gas sector who are saying to us…. Again, Premier Klein

and I visited with the many members of the energy industry in Texas last year. I

can tell you that they say British Columbia is getting it right. They're ready

to invest in British Columbia. We saw the largest single gas lease sale in the

history of Canada take place right here in British Columbia.

[1630]

What's

happening is that we are rushing to try and catch up with training people so

that they can fill those jobs. There are jobs looking for people now in British

Columbia. That is a sign of success. There are communities looking to their

future in British Columbia again. That is a sign of success. We have investment

intentions going up in British Columbia. That is a sign of success. We have

Moody's saying that we are managing our economy and our government expenditures

in a way that provides for long-term, sustainable programs that people can count

on. That is a success.

We have

anecdotal evidence. We have anecdotal evidence from people like the head of QLT,

one of the few successful biotechnology companies in the world. That CEO has

said to us explicitly: "Because of the changes that you made in British

Columbia, I can attract talent back to British Columbia. I can build the future

of my business here in British Columbia."

We have

Electronic Arts, who have closed down the office they were forced to open under

the previous government because of their tax regime and their anti-investment

activities. We actually got that office closed in Washington State and reopened

in British Columbia so that they're investing in jobs and opportunities for

young British Columbians.

Madam

Chair, I can tell you that British Columbia's message is going to be taken

across the continent. It's going to be taken around the world, because British

Columbians are proud of what we have. They're proud of what we have to offer,

and they're proud of the future we have in British Columbia.

MacPhail: I guess the Premier doesn't have any cost-benefit analysis of the

advertising, because that was the question.

Let's be

clear about the employment stats, and these aren't anecdotal. Employment stats

are not anecdotal. They're statistical. I know that CanWest Global didn't report

on this. The CanWest Global regime didn't report on the stats from April, but

here's what happened. The province lost a net 3,000 jobs, and yet the

unemployment rate went down. And you go: "Oh my God. How could that

possibly be?" It's because a number of people actually left the workforce

— abandoned their attempts to find employment. That combined with a net loss

in jobs had the unemployment rate going down.

That's the

kind of good news this government likes. Yeah, we can get the unemployment rate

down, although it's still substantially higher than when they took over

government. We can get the unemployment rate down not only by losing jobs but by

having more people leave the province because of lack of work — more than what

the actual job loss was. Wow, that's a real success story. I guess the Premier

doesn't have any cost-benefit analysis for his advertising, or else he would

have answered my question.

Does the

public affairs bureau have any advertising contracts with third-party agencies

— ongoing or out for tender?

Sahota: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Sahota: Joining us in the House today are hard-working and enthusiastic

students from Second Street School in Burnaby. They're here to learn more about

government and politics and the Legislature. They are joined by their teacher,

Ms. Kirkpatrick, and parents and other teachers Ms. Fletcher, Ms. Muselius, Ms.

Sakibara, Mrs. Murao, Mrs. Singh, Mr. Mervin, Mr. Mackie, Mrs. Huisman and Mr.

Gerew. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. G.

Campbell: Can the member opposite make it clear to me what she means by

that?

[ Page 11220 ]

[1635]

MacPhail: It's been reported that the public affairs bureau is seeking a

full-time advertising agency for contract. The agency will "assist in

strategic advertising planning and in creative and production services for

multimedia campaigns focused on the province's economic policies and programs,

the overall B.C. economy and the province's regional and cultural

diversity." The public affairs bureau is also seeking a full-time agency of

record for "cross-government campaigns that focus on policy and programs

related to financial management, government operations and accountability."

The contract for this third-party agency would involve video and film projects.

Hon. G.

Campbell: As the member opposite knows, the requests for proposal were

placed on B.C. Bid website in accordance with the standard process for ensuring

that the private sector has access to complete public sector opportunities. The

template and the process do not differ from those used by the previous

administration.

MacPhail: Oh, when it suits this government, they're doing things no

differently than the previous administration. It's just wonderful how the

government can swish and swoosh. Fortunately, the public sees through it. So

everything's just the same as the previous government, but oh, when they want to

distinguish themselves, they just give anecdotal evidence.

Boy, I bet

you the public would like to say: "I wish this government could have the

same economic growth that was achieved under the previous government — 2.9

percent in the last year, an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent."

Interjection.

MacPhail: Oh yeah, the Deputy Premier laughs because she's embarrassed by

the fact that at the end of their term, they will have gotten back to the

economic well-being they were left with. That's what they'll have achieved. Wow,

what a record.

It's no

different than under the previous government — fair enough. But who is it?

What's the outcome of the advertising? What's the plan? How much?

Hon. G.

Campbell: As I mentioned, on the B.C. Bid website there is a request for

proposal that is being reviewed at this point by the staff. The budget that's

been set for advertising in this budget is $11.9 million. As I mentioned

earlier, those dollars will be going in general to the programs which I

mentioned. Those programs, I'm sure, will evolve and will be developed

specifically as we go through the next 12 months. I think it's also important to

note that we will do all of those programs within the budget that's been

established.

You know, I

have to respond at least briefly to the member opposite's comments. I was born

in British Columbia. I remember what it was like to live in a province where

there was opportunity for young people, where people didn't feel they had to

leave — in fact, where British Columbia was a magnet for investment, where

British Columbia was a magnet for job growth.

I can tell

the member opposite…. She may want to close her eyes to this. She said at the

beginning that of course they've learned their lesson. Count on them. They've

learned their lesson. All they're opposed to so far is offshore oil and gas. All

they're opposed to so far is a billion-dollar investment in the northern

economies of British Columbia. All they're opposed to so far is the potential to

get coastal communities back up on their feet with stable, long-term activities.

All they're opposed to so far, exactly as they were before, was the mining

industry in this province where because of their activities, one out of two

people lost their job in mining in British Columbia.

Madam

Chair, 52,000 people left this province between 1998 and 2001. After a decade of

the previous government's activity, we went from being a have province that

people took pride in, that they knew they could invest in, to a have-not

province. I'm the first to admit that boy, were they successful in making us a

have-not; were they successful in driving out investment; were they successful

in driving out jobs.

For the

first time in the history of the province we have over two million people at

work, and we're going to have even more people at work as we move forward with

offshore oil and gas investment. We're going to have even more people at work as

we've discovered how we can create an ongoing, year-round oil and gas industry

in this province. We're going to have even more people at work as we

re-establish mining as an opportunity and an industry of opportunity for people

all over British Columbia. We're going to have even more people at work as we

undo the damage that the previous government did with overburdening regulation

and taxation policy that drove literally dozens of mills out of existence in the

forest industry in this province. So we are going to have more people at work.

We're proud of having more people at work.

[1640]

We are

going to encourage investment. We're proud of encouraging investment. We've

created over 125,000 new jobs in British Columbia. That's 125,000 people who

have work now, who didn't have it before December 31, 2001. That's a record that

any other province would like to have. We have it in British Columbia because

we've worked hard. Yes, we've made some difficult decisions, but those decisions

have always been focused on what's best for the families of British Columbia and

what's best for the communities of British Columbia. Have they been tough? Yes,

they have. But I think people in British Columbia are recognizing that we're

able to move ahead. As we move forward….

Yes, we do

have an advertising budget. Yes, it is one-half of the NDP's advertising budget

about a decade ago. Yes, we will be providing the public with direct information

on what's taking place in health care, what the opportunities in education and

lifelong learn-

[ Page 11221 ]

ing are as we expand our advanced education activities at the fastest rate

for four decades in this province. Of course we're going to tell people that.

Of course

we're going to tell investors about British Columbia, because we want their

investment. We want