2005 Legislative Session: First Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

'Na aksa Gila Kyew Learning

Centre

Austin

Municipal elections

H. Bloy

Best Babies program at Esquimalt

Neighbourhood House

Karagianis

Role of coroners in B.C.

MacKay

Collingwood Neighbourhood House

A. Dix

Development in Dundarave Village

McIntyre

Oral Questions

Public release of child death

reviews

C. James

Hon. J.

Les

Handling of child death review of

Brandon James Seymour

A. Dix

Hon. J.

Les

Austin

Responsibility for outstanding

child death reviews

Karagianis

Hon. J.

Les

J. Kwan

Worker deaths and safety issues

in forest industry

Puchmayr

Hon. M.

de Jong

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Potential changes to school

boards' mandate

Horgan

Hon. S.

Bond

Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor

General, financial statement, Financial Statement Audit

Coverage Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-2007 through 2008-2009, November

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Legislative Assembly Statutes

Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act (Bill 19)

Hon. M.

de Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Legislative Assembly Statutes

Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act (Bill 19)

Farnworth

C. James

Mayencourt

J. Kwan

Committee of the Whole House

Legislative Assembly Statutes

Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act (Bill 19)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Legislative Assembly Statutes

Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act (Bill 19)

Motions without Notice

Appointment of special committee to select a Merit

Commissioner

Hon. M. de Jong

Appointment of acting Ombudsman

Hon. M. de Jong

Appointment of special committee to appoint an

Ombudsman

Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

Hon. G.

Campbell

C. James

A. Dix

Sather

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Employment

and Income Assistance

Hon. C.

Richmond

Trevena

[ Page 1991 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2005

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: I'm very pleased to introduce someone who happens to be having an anniversary today. It's actually an anniversary of a birthday. This particular individual chose to no longer have birthdays since they passed their 29th birthday, and I'm advised that it's the 20th anniversary of her 29th birthday, which means this will royally be the last birthday that the member for Prince George–Mount Robson chooses to have.

Hon. L. Reid: We are joined in the Legislature today by Sheri Marino. She is an autism advocate in the province of British Columbia. She herself has a child with autism. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25 b )

'NA AKSA GILA KYEW LEARNING CENTRE

R. Austin: Last Friday I attended the grand reopening of the 'Na aksa Gila Kyew Learning Centre located in the community of Kitsumkalum, just on the outskirts of Terrace. Exciting things are taking place there. A program has been set up to enable community members to return to school. It is an adult program where the students range in age from 19 to 43.

These students have all made an incredible decision — that, of course, is to recognize the value of education and what it can do to better their lives. With this decision has come the equally important commitment to attend full-time four days a week and to be willing to work at home in the evenings and weekends to reach their goals. It is always encouraging to see people who for one reason or another did not find success in their early years in the school system making the choice to return and finish their grade 12.

Many of these students have families of their own, and we all know how difficult it is to balance the responsibility of family life with the effort needed to complete school work. My hat goes off to all of them, and I wish them every success. Within this small student body of 19, they have five students on course to graduate this summer and many more who can graduate next year.

This important program is the work of the Kitsumkalum education coordinator Charlotte Guno, a person whose passion for education and all that it brings is self-evident. She has striven to make others in her community understand the important link that education plays in the quality of life for her people and is making a difference in addressing one of the grimmest statistics of all.

We have tried for years to address the completion rate of first nation members of our northern community. Despite lots of hard work, we have failed to address the imbalance between first nations achievement rates and the general population. This is not just a statistic to be repeated ad nauseam as though it is acceptable and there is nothing we can do to address it. The fact is that a first nations child is twice as likely to not complete grade 12 as a non–first nations child in school district 82, and I believe this is often the case in other places around the province.

This means that a significant group in our society will be excluded from entering the mainstream economy. What a waste of social capital, especially in a province where we are enduring a shortage of skilled workers.

My sense of this problem, having spent a few years working in the school system and speaking to first nations leaders in the area, is that for too many first nations children our curriculum and method of delivery are not culturally relevant to their everyday lives. In addition, many families lack the resources to assist their children.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

H. Bloy: On Saturday hundreds of thousands of British Columbians went to the polls to cast their votes in this year's municipal elections. While municipal elections do not always receive the same amount of coverage as federal and provincial elections, they are just as important. Many services British Columbians come to rely on in local scope — such as fire and police services, garbage pickup, bylaws, zoning — are more often than not under the auspices of the municipal government. In terms of day-to-day services, no level of government has as big an impact as the local government has.

In my riding, in both the cities of Burnaby and Coquitlam, we'll see many familiar faces returning and a number of new, first-time representatives coming to council and the school boards. I hope all of these officials will be able to work together to do what is best for their communities.

To all the mayors, councillors and school trustees who were elected, I offer my sincere congratulations. The voters have placed their trust in you, and it is important never to lose sight of this fact.

[1410]

To all of those who stepped up yet were not successful in their bids in seeking office, I offer my thanks. While you might not have been victorious, it takes a great deal of courage to have your name placed on the ballot, and you should be praised for your commitment to the democratic process.

The real winners, however, are those who took the time to vote on Saturday. These voters are worthy of our praise in ensuring that democracy remains alive and well in British Columbia. Always, the electorate decides what is best for them, and they should be congratulated.

[ Page 1992 ]

BEST BABIES PROGRAM AT

ESQUIMALT NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

M. Karagianis: I rise today to talk about a success story in my community. Esquimalt Neighbourhood House is exactly what it sounds like: a resource known for reaching out a friendly hand, for being a good neighbour in the community particularly to those most vulnerable. Nowhere is that more successful than with their Best Babies program. Best Babies is exactly what it sounds like: a program to assist in developing the very best outcomes for babies and their moms. Best Babies is a support system for moms-to-be who may have a family already, those who are young and inexperienced, and those who find themselves alone and in need.

Best Babies offers everything from education to food vouchers, from health care to breast-feeding support. It has produced such successful outcomes that there are often far more requests than there are resources. Mothers are befriended and guided through a healthy pregnancy and childbirth and then supported through the first demanding years of raising a new child. The program has produced incredible friendships among the mothers, a network that shares child-minding, communal meals and just plain companionship. It has often been pivotal in preventing unhealthy pregnancies, loneliness, depression and isolation — all environments that contribute to child neglect.

The incredible success of Best Babies has produced the next most logical step: Best Families. Those families have continued to build on the initial strengths of Best Babies, creating a community network that is nurturing and interdependent. Best Babies and Best Families do make for the best communities.

ROLE OF CORONERS IN B.C.

D. MacKay: Most of us in this chamber had other careers before being elected. I would like to talk about my previous careers. I spent 28 years in the RCMP and was a provincial coroner for nine years following my retirement.

Most people know what a police officer does, so I would like to explain the role of a coroner in the province of British Columbia. The role of a coroner is to independently investigate every sudden and unexpected death. This includes all deaths that result from accidents such as motor vehicle accidents; deaths resulting from violence; or sudden, unexpected deaths in the home or wherever they occur.

If the death is sudden and unexpected, the death is investigated by the police and the coroner's office. The police investigate to determine if any criminal activity caused the death, and the coroner investigates to determine the medical cause of death. If the police determine there are no criminal actions responsible for the death, the coroner determines the medical cause of death and reviews all the evidence from the police and the pathologist, including toxicology, and concludes the investigation by way of a judgment of inquiry or an inquest.

For those deaths that occur while a person is in custody of a police officer or while in jail, an open public inquest is a legislative requirement. Following a submission of a judgment of inquiry by a coroner, it is then sent to the regional coroner's office for a second review by the regional coroner. If the death involves a young person under the age of 19, it is then sent to the child death review unit. Coroners can also make recommendations on ways to prevent similar deaths from happening again.

The coroners in our province do a great job, under some very disturbing situations at times, investigating every sudden and unexpected death that occurs in our province. We owe these people a great deal of gratitude, and I would like to thank them for the job that they do.

COLLINGWOOD NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

A. Dix: This week in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway, we have a number of events celebrating the tenth anniversary of Collingwood Neighbourhood House. Collingwood Neighbourhood House was built in our constituency because of an extraordinary community and public effort by numerous volunteers across Vancouver who worked hard because these services were needed in our community; by private sector partners like Concert Properties; by politicians and political leaders such as the Premier when he was mayor of Vancouver and such as my predecessor Glen Clark when he was MLA for Vancouver-Kingsway.

[1415]

I think Collingwood Neighbourhood House represents, in many respects, what is best about the city of Vancouver. People speaking more than 60 languages are served there, working together. When we think about the world today and we think about all the division in the world, it seems to me it's an extraordinary thing that on the east side of Vancouver, we can bring so many people to work together in common cause.

So on behalf of this House, I want to thank all of the volunteers and staff who do so much for the citizens of my community at Collingwood Neighbourhood House and to recognize this extraordinary anniversary.

DEVELOPMENT IN DUNDARAVE VILLAGE

J. McIntyre: Dundarave Village is one of the hidden treasures in my riding. Located on Marine Drive in West Vancouver, not only does Dundarave feature a sea wall that promotes healthy living, but it's also home to a number of wonderful boutique-style shops, cafés, restaurants and services. It still has the feel of a small-town community, yet it has the amenities of a city. Dundarave has a relaxed and pedestrian feel to it. That contributes to it being so special. Like the rest of the areas in my Sea to Sky riding, this picturesque community is experiencing growth. While the residents of Dundarave have embraced this growth, they do not want to do it at the expense of the village feel.

[ Page 1993 ]

This week I will have the pleasure of attending the opening of Dundarave's redeveloped MarketPlace IGA. While the opening of a new supermarket may not be too significant to some, what the developers incorporated should be, as they have a concept that incorporates the new variety of housing that West Vancouver so badly needs. It enables those who don't want to stay or wish to move to single-family homes in our area another attractive alternative. It's pedestrian-friendly. You can now live, shop and recreate all in the immediate area without the need for a car.

It both enhances community spirit and revitalizes the community. Not only that, it can serve as a model for the necessary revitalization that's being discussed publicly for Ambleside, just down the road.

I hope that here in the House today, you'll help me congratulate all those involved — the property owner, the architects, the developer, H.Y. Louie Co. — in rebuilding their MarketPlace IGA. I hope this will be an example to communities throughout our province.

Oral Questions

PUBLIC RELEASE OF CHILD DEATH REVIEWS

C. James: Last week the government admitted that it abandoned 713 child death reviews. Those 713 files were put in a warehouse and forgotten.

Last week the opposition also asked about 546 child deaths that have occurred since 2003. There has been no public reporting. These 546 cases have been neglected by this government. The Solicitor General told this House that the reviews had been done, but he wouldn't release them.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Is the Solicitor General prepared today to table those reviews so the public can finally see recommendations that they may contain?

Hon. J. Les: Let me reiterate again, one more time, that in fact in British Columbia all children's deaths are reviewed. They are reviewed — as has been outlined by the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine just a few moments ago — by the coroner's office, by the police if that is appropriate or by medical professionals if that is appropriate. So all child deaths in British Columbia are reviewed on that basis.

In addition to that, we have a child death review process in British Columbia based in the coroner's office and staffed with medical professionals, who do a secondary review. That has been working well since January of 2003.

The results of those reviews will be made public when reports are compiled. One report has already been made public around the sleeping practices of children, which I think has been received well in the medical and parental community around the province.

[1420]

As other reports are compiled — whether those are on individual cases, as may sometimes be appropriate, or whether those are in cases in aggregate, commenting on trends that become obvious as those are reviewed — those reports will all be released publicly.

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

C. James: It is appropriate to release individual child death reviews on every single case. That's what is missing here, and that's what the government doesn't seem to understand. We have real concerns about the first review process that is happening with these 546 neglected children. The reviews aren't as comprehensive as the ones done by the former Children's Commission. The chief coroner has already said that he didn't have the legislative capacity or the financial capacity to do them, and not one has been released.

So my question, again, to the Minister of Children and Families: of the 546 neglected cases, how many of those were children known to the ministry, and why haven't those reports been made public?

Hon. J. Les: I say again to the Leader of the Opposition that those 546 cases will all be reported upon by the child death review unit. The coroner's office has already made clear that they need some additional resources to do that. We have committed those resources to them. As a matter of fact, in the current fiscal year's budget there is a $1.4 million lift, as I'm sure the member opposite is aware. In fact, in four of the previous five years that budget had been underspent.

Clearly, since January 2003 some things have been learned. The coroner has also talked about the fact that there is some clarification needed with respect to legislation. As the member is also aware, Mr. Ted Hughes is reviewing the child death review process as well. From that process, too, we expect some commentary. We will put all of that together to make any improvements that are deemed to be necessary.

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

C. James: It's clear the Solicitor General doesn't have the information, so I'll try the question to the Minister of Children and Families, because it is important to look at whether these children and how many of these children were known to the ministry. The death of children who are known to the ministry is at the core of this issue. These are the children that the ministry interacts with. Matthew Vaudreuil was a child known to the ministry. Jamie Charlie and his sister were considered children known to the ministry. It's the tragic death of these children as well as those in care that we need to learn from in the individual reports.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. How many of the 546 neglected cases involve children who were known to the ministry, and who made the decision to keep those reports hidden?

Hon. J. Les: There is no attempt by anyone to keep any reports hidden with respect to the child death re-

[ Page 1994 ]

view process. We have said constantly, and we will continue to commit to making all of these reports public…. That is the explicit mandate. That is what we want to do. We want to learn everything possible on secondary review of these cases after, first of all, the other appropriate reviews have been done.

The Leader of the Opposition will know that in many cases, unfortunately, it takes a long time before the child death review team can actually get to these cases, as a result of the complexity of some of these files. The member opposite is quite aware that any criminal proceedings, for example, must be dealt with first — any inquest proceedings and matters of that nature. So I say again to the Leader of the Opposition that this is going to be a public process. All of those files will be commented on, as appropriate and as deemed appropriate by the child death review unit.

HANDLING OF CHILD DEATH REVIEW

OF BRANDON JAMES SEYMOUR

A. Dix: My question is to the Solicitor General. I want to raise one of these 546 tragic and sad cases today. Brandon James Seymour was a foster child in the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. He was two and a half years old when he died on June 27, 2003.

[1425]

Brandon had serious health issues and was required to use a wheelchair. That wheelchair was too big for him, and he occasionally slid down in it. He was waiting for a replacement. On June 27, 2003, his caregiver found him in this wheelchair with the restraint straps around his neck area. He had once again slipped in his chair, and he was not breathing. Efforts to resuscitate him failed. He died that morning. The coroner on the case classified the death as undetermined and offered no recommendations. When the Solicitor General said every case is investigated, is this what he meant?

Hon. J. Les: As we heard earlier today in members' statements, we have a very professional and well-regarded coroner's service here in British Columbia, and I think we can all be grateful for that fact. When the coroner's service makes a finding that a cause of death is undetermined, I can't stand here in this House and second-guess that decision. It would be completely inappropriate for me to do that. I have to take that decision at face value. There are other processes, such as the secondary child death review, that could perhaps look at something like that and make further recommendations, particularly of a preventative nature.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: I'm not asking the Solicitor General to make determinations himself in this House today. I'm asking him to explain why the government got rid of the Children's Commission, which automatically did those second-stage reviews. I'm asking him why he got rid of the child advocate who assisted families who needed help with the ministry and with the government. I'm asking the minister why he eliminated all of the funding for child death reviews. This is a case where a child death review is required, and simply put, one hasn't been done.

Can the Solicitor General explain why the public has not yet seen a child death review into this tragic case? Has one been completed? Of all of the 546 cases, can he table one in this House today that has actually been completed?

Hon. J. Les: I will simply say this. The file that the member refers to will be reviewed by the child death review unit, and it will be reported upon.

R. Austin: This tragic death occurred two and a half years ago, and the government doesn't know if the proper investigation was ever done. There are some alarming facts about this case. He was a foster child. People knew his wheelchair was too big for him. He had multiple medical needs. This is the kind of case that the government needs to learn from. Where is the child death review for Brandon Seymour? How many other cases like this exist among the 713 or the 546?

Hon. J. Les: There are quite a variety of causes of death of young people and children. They range anywhere from stillbirths to disease and accidents and what have you. These are all, each one of them, very tragic cases obviously. The case that the member refers to, which I believe is the same case that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway refers to, is another one of those tragic cases. Obviously, I am not going to comment on the specifics of that case here this afternoon. It would be inappropriate for me to do so. It will be properly reported upon when the child death review unit completes its work, and I await their recommendations.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: The Solicitor General doesn't know. Indeed, none of us know. The reason is because this government created a system that was fundamentally flawed and then ignored the problem. This government neglected 546 child deaths since 2003. They failed to release any of the reports. Brandon Seymour is only one of those cases.

Can the Solicitor General explain where the 546 reports from 2003 onwards are located? Are they also sitting in a warehouse somewhere?

Hon. J. Les: It is a fact that the Children's Commission in the years 2001 and 2002 was starting to come, itself, to the conclusion that the simple filing of individual reports on each and every case was perhaps not productive. They, too, were expressing an appetite for looking at trends, for example, in all of these occurrences to establish what we might learn from that and how we could take more preventative action. I think it is important to make that distinction.

[ Page 1995 ]

[1430]

So the member is quite wrong, in fact, to suggest that somehow 546 files have been forgotten. These are, in fact, all files that have received a second-stage investigative process. The child death review unit will be reporting out on their findings as a result of that investigation.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR

OUTSTANDING CHILD DEATH REVIEWS

M. Karagianis: We know that some of those 546 neglected cases are children known to the ministry. We don't know how many, though. It's very obvious that the Solicitor General, after all this time, still doesn't know, either, and can't release those reports to us. We also know that some of those cases involve children like Brandon Seymour.

The coroner's service has not been able to get the job done and complete child death reviews. The Premier says it's as a result of transition. The coroner says it's as a result of no funding. But the sad reality is that 713 files were forgotten and another 546, like Brandon Seymour, have been neglected.

My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier commit today to releasing the transition and implementation plan so that we can see, once and for all, how government expected to have the coroner's service get this work done in an already overburdened office?

Hon. J. Les: A few things I would like to underline one more time for the member opposite. Since January of 2003, the child death review unit, staffed by professional people within the coroner's office, has been working well. It has reviewed and completed the review of 546 files. I have committed to the coroner's office that they will have the funding necessary to complete reports as and when they deem it necessary to issue reports — whether those are reports on individual files or on files collectively, which is often important.

The report that was recently done, for example, on sleeping practices was not a report on the sleeping practices of one child. It was a study of trends that the various professionals had observed over some time. They made some important recommendations, and that work should continue.

As I said a moment ago, the coroner's office will have (

a) the personnel and (

b) the funding required, as we've already indicated in this year's budget, to get that work done.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: When this government decided to close down the Children's Commission, the coroner's service already had a very serious backlog. A 2002 briefing note from the B.C. Coroners Service states: "It was determined in late 2002 that the BCCS currently had in the neighbourhood of 1,000 overdue files." The note goes on to say: "Additionally, there is no process to ensure systematic, periodic review of any of the ongoing investigations."

The coroner's service already knew that they had a backlog, and they knew that they didn't have the effective process for reviewing ongoing investigations. Again, despite these circumstances, the government plunged ahead. Can the Premier please explain why hundreds of files were dumped into the coroner's service without any funding or an adequate plan for dealing with the backlog?

Hon. J. Les: As the member opposite is well aware, we have committed publicly to investigate these issues around the transition from the Children's Commission to the child death review unit within the coroner's service. When we have all of those answers as to what occurred and why and why not, we will report on that publicly as soon as possible.

J. Kwan: So far we have had no answers on how many of the 546 neglected cases were children known to the ministry. We have had no answers on why the public has not yet seen a death review in cases like Brandon Seymour. We have had no answers on how many other cases like Brandon Seymour exist, and we have had no answers on where the 546 reports from 2003 onward are located.

My question is to the Premier. Is the Premier satisfied with how the Solicitor General is handling the missing children, the neglected children, the forgotten children in this province?

[1435]

Hon. J. Les: If the members want to stand up and ask repetitive questions, they can do that if they like. Let me then give a repetitive answer. The fact of the matter is that all children's deaths in British Columbia are appropriately reviewed. They are reviewed in every case. They are reviewed by medical professionals in hospitals. They are reviewed by the coroner's service. They are reviewed by the police if that is appropriate. That occurs in the case of the death of every young person in British Columbia.

There is a second-stage review process. It's called the child death review process, and 546 of those reviews have been completed since January of 2003. Yes, there are some issues around 713 files that we discussed last week. I have made a commitment to this House that those files will be reviewed on an expedited basis. We have also indicated to the coroner's service that additional funding would be made available for the production of reports, as indicated by the chief coroner who has said that additional funding may well be required to accomplish that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry that the minister finds these questions repetitive and tedious, but the fact is that we will continue to ask these questions until we get an-

[ Page 1996 ]

swers. British Columbians deserve the answers. The families of these children deserve the answers.

Again, to the Premier: is he satisfied with how his government has performed to date on the files of these children, these neglected children — forgotten children?

Hon. J. Les: I indicated clearly last week that the 713 files that had not been completely reviewed at the second stage were an unacceptable matter to me and that we would deal with those on an expedited basis. The reason I can say that with complete confidence is that this government takes each one of these unfortunate tragedies very, very seriously. We want to make sure that we do the right thing and deal with those files professionally, expeditiously, and learn from them what we possibly can.

WORKER DEATHS AND SAFETY ISSUES

IN FOREST INDUSTRY

C. Puchmayr: Another forest worker is dead. Another family has been devastated. Another logger has found a colleague fatally injured in the woods. That brings the total to 38 this year — 38 fatalities in the forests this year alone. This is unacceptable. One is unacceptable.

My question is to the Labour Minister. More than ten deaths ago the Minister of Labour stood in this House and said the time for action is now. What tangible actions has the minister taken to end what many are calling the carnage in the forests?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the member for the question. First of all, I know he would, as all members would, extend our profound sense of sympathy and thoughts and prayers to the family of the individual who was killed this weekend during the course of, I believe, heli-logging activities, although I am still getting more of the details.

The member will know, from some of the discussions that have taken place between him and me, that I have already been in direct communication with WorkSafe B.C. and initiated some specific actions around the dedication of additional staff resources and inspection and enforcement resources and that there is a major review taking place of all of the policies that govern the occupational safety elements of the forest industry, with particular reference to ensuring that a changed industry is being properly regulated.

The member will also know, I think, that a summit meeting has been scheduled for December 5 involving all of the major stakeholders — none of which, sadly, changes the fact that, as the member has reminded the House, far too many workers in the forest sector have been injured and fatally injured, and that needs to change.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1440]

C. Puchmayr: The minister stood in this House and said his government would do anything it needed to do to end the carnage. In response to the government's call, the opposition has introduced a five-point strategy that we believe will curb the deaths in our forests. My question is to the Labour Minister. You said that your government would do anything. Will you implement our five recommendations and start the process to end the carnage in the forests?

Hon. M. de Jong: What I will do and will say — because I believe I know the spirit with which the recommendations are offered — is that I'll ensure that they, along with numerous other recommendations from the Forest Safety Council and from the steelworkers union, are on the table when all of the stakeholders meet on December 5 to ascertain and prioritize what the actions need to be.

As I have said in the past, I hope there is no one in this House who is claiming propriety over this issue. We're happy to entertain and take ideas from the opposition, from any member, and we're going to conduct those discussions. As I also said in this House, workers in the forest sector deserve to know that they can go to work in the morning and come back safely to their families at night.

B. Simpson: Our thanks to the Minister of Labour for committing to take into consideration what we put forward, and I agree with him. It is in the spirit of cooperation that we intend to do that. We don't want to have to stand in this House and give condolences to family members.

In that, I want to raise an issue that has been raised, and that is that we are heading into the heaviest logging season in the interior that we have ever experienced. We're going to put more forest workers to work. We're going to put more logging trucks on the road.

To the Minister of Forests and Range: what specific steps is the minister taking to make sure that increased activity does not result in increased fatalities?

Hon. M. de Jong: There's no doubt that increased traffic activity poses increased risks. Just as incidents relating to fallers have been on the rise on the coast, the larger concern by far, with respect to the part of the province that the member hails from, relates to traffic incidents and fatalities. The point can also be made that what we are seeing is a rise in actual incidents, and that doesn't even take into account unreported incidents.

An examination of the regulations that differentiate between traffic activity on public highways versus Forest Service roads — or Forestry roads, as they're commonly referred to — is something that the Minister of Forests and I, in concert with the various stakeholders involved, are undertaking with a mind to ensuring that a proper, reasonable, rational, commonsense set of regulations is in place to do what we can to bring down what are unacceptable levels of accident.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 1997 ]

B. Simpson: When we first raised this issue in the House, the Minister of Labour indicated it was time for action and not review. However, we argued there was room for review, and I'm glad to see that some of that review work is being done, but there is a specific action that can be taken here.

According to senior Forests Ministry officials, for two years the ministry hasn't written a single ticket for speeding on logging roads, yet they're authorized to do so. They haven't issued one. Both companies and employees, log truck drivers, are saying that speed, lack of signage and infractions on our Forest Service roads are occurring.

Will the Minister of Forests and Range commit to do a staffing review to look at adding more staff resources to address that specific issue for this logging season? That is an action that could be taken now.

Hon. R. Coleman: I asked my staff to start that review last week.

POTENTIAL CHANGES TO

SCHOOL BOARDS' MANDATE

J. Horgan: My question is to the Minister of Education. Now that municipal elections are over and scores of dedicated British Columbians have been elected to represent their communities on school boards across this province, will the minister take the opportunity to end the uncertainty, to end the confusion and the speculation, and advise those trustees just what their role will look like when they're repurposed?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we want to offer our congratulations to those people who have chosen to run and have been elected as school trustees in the province.

[1445]

We know that school trustees run — and there are members on both sides of this House who have chosen to do that — to find the best ways to support students in this province. We intend to have a discussion about how we can move forward and make sure that British Columbia's students have the best possible opportunities, and I look forward to having a discussion with those re-elected and newly elected trustees about that very thing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Will the Minister of Education stand in this place today and eliminate one of the opportunities that they may be considering, which is amalgamation of school districts? I've heard from dozens and dozens of residents in various communities across B.C. who are very concerned that with an absence of some sort of definition of what repurposing is, some clarity from the minister that the end result is going to be amalgamating smaller and rural districts…. Will the minister stand today and commit to not do that during the term of this school board?

Hon. S. Bond: I reiterate the commitment to look for the best possible opportunities to serve students in this province. We're going to have a discussion about that. For what we consider the first time in this province, we're actually having significant, meaningful discussion about the things that will best serve our students. That includes things like class size and composition. In fact, as I understand it, the last time amalgamation took place in the province, it was actually under the NDP government.

So we want to talk about how to best serve students. We know that at times the status quo is the most comfortable, but in fact, we want to talk about how to serve students. We want to do that with school boards, with parents and with administrators, and that's precisely what we intend to do.

M. Farnworth: To the Minister of Education: yes or no? Are you considering the amalgamation of school districts in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we actually think, as apparently the members opposite do, that listening to the public and to trustees is an important thing to do, and that's exactly what we're going to do over the next number of months. We're going to talk about how to best serve students. We're going to respond to that, and we're going find the ways to make sure that a great public education system gets even better.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: An important issue, a stirring issue.

My question, then, to the minister is this. The Premier has made much about the autonomy of local school education systems — school districts. Why did you not tell trustees and parents before election day that you are considering the amalgamation of school districts in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: The Premier has also made much comment about the fact that we are going to be the best educated, most literate jurisdiction on this continent. In fact, the most important thing we can do is ask: how best can we deliver to the people and the students of this province the best, most outstanding education system that they deserve? We intend to do that.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's financial statement: Financial Statement Audit Coverage Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-2007 through 2008-2009, November 2005.

[ Page 1998 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 REPEAL ACT

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 19 be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1450]

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 17, introduced and passed last Thursday, was the product of extensive discussions and unanimous agreement between the government and the opposition caucuses and leaders. The provisions of that bill were always based upon a genuine desire to proceed in a way that would respect the views of all members as reflected in their unanimous support.

On Thursday last, that objective appeared to have been met when each member of the chamber stood in support of Bill 17. However, in light of the Leader of the Opposition's sudden change of position on Friday on behalf of her caucus, clearly the conditions of bipartisan support for Bill 17 no longer exist. It, therefore, cannot and will not take effect.

Further, the unreliability of the opposition leader's positions on this matter, in the government's view, precludes any possibility of it being dealt with further in a truly non-partisan manner. Accordingly, all members of the chamber should know that the government intends to take no further steps to examine either the salary, pension or constituency office support issues and that passage of Bill 19 will end this discussion, and we will move on to other issues.

A reminder: as always, the government considers this a free vote and encourages members to exercise their will.

With leave, I would move that the bill be read a second time now.

M. Farnworth: I recognize the importance of what we are doing here today. The opposition had concerns around the questions raised in the public on the day after. At the time we said that the bill would be….

Mr. Speaker: Member, excuse me for a second. Could you take your seat.

Hon. members, shall leave be granted for second reading?

Leave granted.

Bill 19, Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 REPEAL ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: I move second reading.

M. Farnworth: As I said a moment ago in my haste, I recognize the importance of this issue. As I said at the time, the opposition during the debate said that the public would judge. There were comments and concerns that were raised after third reading of the bill, and we believe that's important.

Today the bill has been tabled, and I believe it's important that we take this opportunity to indicate that while we are prepared to support the bill, we want to examine the bill. We believe it's important that the opposition does that. We want to make sure that we understand all….

I think it's important that we remember in this House that there was a lot of criticism about the fact of speedy passage of a piece of legislation. We are going to do something here today that we may all pass, but I do think it's important that we have an opportunity to at least look at the bill and to see exactly what the clauses say before we make that decision.

I would ask for a recess, a short one, because we'd like to see a copy of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: We'll take a ten-minute recess.

The House recessed from 2:55 p.m. to 3:04 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Continued second reading debate on Bill 19.

C. James: I rise to speak in support of Bill 19, and I just want to make a few comments about the last few days and the process leading up to this.

We went into these discussions, this side of the House, in good faith with the other side of the House to talk about issues of importance to this Legislature. Those issues are important. Those issues of support for MLAs and support for the people who serve in this House on behalf of the people of British Columbia; supports for our constituency offices so that we can serve all the citizens of British Columbia well in our communities — those continue to be critical issues.

The issue of pension, again, is an important issue for all of us to have a conversation about and to address. The issue of making sure that more people can get involved in public office is critically important.

[1505]

We did go into these discussions with good faith. We went through the process of referring this issue to LAMC. We felt that was the right direction to go, and clearly, we were wrong. Clearly, we did not live up to the public test of transparency. Clearly, we did not live

[ Page 1999 ]

up to the opportunity for the public to have a say on this issue.

As you know, we made a recommendation on Friday to send this issue to a public commission of some kind. I understand why the government has brought in the bill today, and I speak in favour of it. This is not a process nor a direction that I know has been easy for anyone in this Legislature. Most importantly, this has not been an easy process for the public. I regret that. I regret that we didn't give the opportunity for the public to have a say. It's an important lesson, a very important lesson for all of us in this Legislature — and an important lesson for me specifically — about the pace of the Legislature and the pace of bringing things in and taking a second thought.

I don't regret that we acknowledge that a mistake had been made. I don't regret that we will give the opportunity for the public to have their say, and I speak in support of Bill 19.

L. Mayencourt: I rise to speak against this bill, in opposition to this bill. I do so because I believe that on Thursday of last week, when all of the members sitting here in this House today stood up to support Bill 17, they were doing the right thing. They were doing something that addressed some of the key problems that MLAs face with respect to serving their constituents.

Now, there's been a lot said in the media about a 15-to-32-percent raise, about gold-plated pensions and so on. I want to straighten something out for this House and for my constituents. Last year for my job as an MLA, I received $78,000 and change. But the province also contributed about $5,600 to my RRSP, and I did a matchup with that as well. So my true income is really about $83,000. With the passage of Bill 17, my income would rise to $86,450 for an increase of $2,639.50 — or in other words, a 3.05-percent increase.

The second portion of the bill provides for a pension, something I strongly support. I am required by law under Bill 17 to contribute 9 percent of my income, or $7,708.50, to the pension plan. This pension will provide me with up to 65 percent of my income — or an annual salary of $56,192.50 — if I am here for a minimum of 12 years.

The net effect of Bill 17 is that my gross pay will be $78,741, or an increase of $606 annually. That's about $11 a week.

The third portion of this bill…. I know it's not actually part of this bill, but the Minister of Labour spoke to the issue of constituency packages. Right now I, and every member of this House, get $84,000 to run my constituency. Now, that may seem like a lot of money to people watching on TV, but that goes to pay the salaries for two superb — and I do mean superb — constituency assistants, and I've got roughly $300 or $400 left over to spend on anything I like.

[1510]

Even with the $84,000 that I receive, every year I have gone out and raised $30,000 to supplement my constituency office so that I can serve the 90,000 people that I represent — 90,000 people in my riding. Let me tell you that for all of the talk of communities around this province, I do not know of one that even comes close to the kinds of complexities of problems, issues that are festering and things that have to be fixed. I want to tell you that I come in here every day because I love this job. I love to get the job done. I love to make sure that I fix those problems, and I actually do that. I actually come in here, and I make a difference in my community. I represent….

Someone said this is self-serving. I don't serve myself; I serve 90,000 people in British Columbia. That's who I serve.

The Legislative Assembly Management Committee decided to give us $36,000 more a year for running our constituency office. Some of us will use it — I will — and some of us won't. The member for Peace River South doesn't have the same expenses that I do, but what I have to tell you is that this package allows me to serve my constituents the way they like to be served. Eleven dollars a week is a hell of a raise. I think I can get three lattes with that.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition…. I don't want to be mean, but last week all of us stood up and said it was a good idea and it was the right thing — all of us. Every last one of us stood up. And today the Leader of the Opposition is going to support Bill 19. The only difference between Thursday and Monday is maybe 150 nasty e-mails and a couple of calls from George Heyman and Jim Sinclair and Jinny Sims. For that, the Leader of the Opposition betrayed her caucus, betrayed everyone in this House.

An Hon. Member: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

L. Mayencourt: She decided that it was not worth the dignity, that she would not dignify it….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

L. Mayencourt: She made a decision on Thursday that she should have stuck with.

The fact of the matter is that people reported we got a raise, and we didn't; we got 11 bucks a week. The fact is that people thought we were getting a gold-plated pension, and we're not. We actually have to work a long time to get it, and some of us may never get it.

I'm opposed to this. I want the Legislative Assembly Management Committee to stick to its earlier commitment to provide a $36,000 increase for ridings. This pains me, because I have only broken ranks with my caucus once, on one bill, and so I take it really seriously. I have tremendous respect for every one of the members in this House — save one. I will vote against Bill 19, and I ask members opposite and members on this side to think about it.

[ Page 2000 ]

I ask the people of British Columbia — my computer's turned on right now; you can e-mail me — to tell me if you think I'm wrong. If you think I'm wrong, well, we'll disagree, but at least you're going to make an informed decision at home today.

Eleven dollars a week. A pension after 12 years of hard work in this House. I don't complain about how hard we work, but every member in this House knows we work 12 hours a day and then go home and go to a dinner for this and a dance for that, and everything costs 150 bucks. We've got to be at those things. We've got to go and support the Cancer Agency or the AIDS organization or the Little League or whatever — you know? We've got to do those things. Otherwise, we're not really connecting with our community. We don't have the capacity to do it with this.

I regret this most of all because I have tremendous respect for my Premier. He's been good and fair to me and all the members on this side, but I have to cast my vote in opposition to his bill.

[1515]

J. Kwan: First of all, let me just say that I appreciate the words of the member for Vancouver-Burrard. It is actually not often that I see and agree with some of his points of view. I don't dispute, and we on this side of the House do not dispute for a moment, how hard every MLA works on both sides of the House.

I've been in public office now since 1993, first as a city councillor and then subsequently as an MLA. People from all political stripes work their guts out because they believe in public service. They want to ensure the representation is there. Rightly or wrongly, we have different points of view, but I believe people's intent remains the same.

I know that when the member talks about the many events and many activities that we engage in outside of this Legislature, they are enormous. They cut into private time, cut into personal time, and that, too, causes strain on relationships. Make no mistake about that. So I don't dispute for one moment that MLAs should be compensated fairly, and that was one component of the package which LAMC reviewed.

I don't dispute for one moment that MLAs need resources to do their jobs. Lord knows, in the last four years, along with my colleague — I can now say her name — Joy MacPhail and, of course, the subsequent arrival through the by-election of my good colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge, that we need resources to do our work. MLAs need that in constituency offices, and as my good colleague the House Leader from the opposition side had already said, we need resources for rural MLAs who need to travel.

Boy, I sit there, and I think: "I don't even know how some MLAs from the rural communities do it, how they have to travel from one end of the constituency to another." I know one MLA has to actually get up at four o'clock in the morning, when she gets out of this House, to start driving to get to her constituency office on the other side of town to ensure that there's some presence there. That's what MLAs go through. That's just one small example, and that happens on both sides of the House.

So I know how hard MLAs work, and they need the resources there to do that job. I know that we as a caucus here on the opposition side, and I dare say on the government side as well…. MLAs need a little bit more resources, as an opposition caucus and as a government caucus, to do their jobs a little bit better outside of the constituency office. That's what the package involved as well.

I fully appreciate what the member for Vancouver-Burrard is talking about. On the question around pension, we on this side of the House — and, in fact, New Democrats — have always argued for fair pensions for working people. We're not suggesting that that should be different for different people. So that, too, on the pension question, is an important issue. I don't dispute that.

Where we fell down, though, is around the process of ensuring that the public gets a say. That's the question of accountability, isn't it? I regret very much, as a LAMC representative on behalf of our caucus, failing to see the importance of that. Our leader rightfully identified that as a critical issue, and we admitted our mistake. It was never the intent of this caucus to betray anyone, but we did that by our action — in a variety of ways. But there is a way in which we can rectify the problem, and I am glad to see that the government has now tabled a bill that would allow for the opportunity to be in place for us to actually address that question.

Part of the process here is to regain public trust. Part of the process here is to say to the public: "Yes, your voice matters." I want to thank the public for bringing forward their concerns to all of us, because they do count. Because, after all, that's why we're here: to represent them.

[1520]

I will say, as well, on the question of making sure that people have an opportunity to express their view in this Legislature, it's important about Bill 19, and by nature, it's related to Bill 17. That's what the government is doing, as well, by tabling this bill — Bill 19 — to repeal the legislation.

Having said that, I am pleased to say that I will be supporting this piece of legislation. It has given me time over the weekend to reflect on the course of action since Thursday. It has, I think, given us an opportunity to look outside these walls and to hear from the public and face the music, as they say, and we've all done that. I think that the government has brought this bill forward because they, too, had heard the message.

Let me just close by saying that it was never the intent as a LAMC member to betray anybody. It was never the intent for us to not negotiate in good faith. We do see, though, that we've made a mistake, and that's why a public process around these critical issues would be essential. That offer is still there for the government to consider, and if the government chooses not to accept that, that's okay too. What is important, though, is that, I think, from this day on as we move forward on issues around this — and on any other is-

[ Page 2001 ]

sue, for that matter, where it relates to important public issues — the government of all stripes needs to be open and accountable, and most importantly of all, we need to make sure that the public is heard.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Government House Leader closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the members that provided their commentary. I move second reading.

[1525]

Second reading of Bill 19 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 70

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Bennett

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Horning

Cantelon

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Campbell

Taylor

Bond

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Hawkins

Krueger

Lekstrom

Polak

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Brar

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

Robertson

Karagianis

Ralston

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 1

Mayencourt

Hon. M. de Jong: I move, by leave, that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 19, Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 REPEAL ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 19; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 3:27 p.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House rise, report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 REPEAL ACT

Bill 19, Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Motions without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

TO SELECT A MERIT COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. de Jong: I have some more motions, and after that last transaction, everyone is, I'm sure, going to listen with rapt attention, but these are more standard motions. I haven't had a chance…. To the Opposition House Leader: I believe we canvassed this — the committee of selection for the Merit Commissioner. In short, that committee would be composed of the same individuals who are on the Committee of Selection for the FOI commissioner. That is Messrs. Rustad — convener; Cantelon; Krog; Mmes. Polak and Thorne. I make that motion with respect to a Special Committee of Selection for the Merit Commissioner.

[A Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend to the Legislative Assembly, pursuant to

section 5.01 of the

Public Service Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 385, the appointment of an individual to hold office as the Merit Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee, and is also empowered:

[ Page 2002 ]

(

a) to appoint of their number, one or more

subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during any period in which the

House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient; and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to

assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as

possible, or following any adjournment of the House, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of: Messrs. Rustad (Convener), Cantelon, and Krog, and Mmes. Polak and Thorne.]

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING OMBUDSMAN

Hon. M. de Jong: The next two motions relate to the Ombudsman. The second motion that I will make is similarly for a Committee of Selection and similarly would appoint the same five individuals. However, the first motion is to bridge the time required to do that work. By leave, I move as follows:

[This House recommend to the Lieutenant Governor that Mr. Howard Kushner be appointed Acting Ombudsman pursuant to

section 6(3)(

b) of the

Ombudsman Act (RSBC 1996 c. 340).]

[1530]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

TO APPOINT AN OMBUDSMAN

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to select and unanimously recommend the appointment of an Ombudsman, pursuant to

Section 2 (2) of the

Ombudsman Act (RSBC 1996 c. 340), and that the said Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered: (

a) to appoint of their number, one or more

subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

(

b) to sit during a period in which the

House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

(

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient; and

(

d) to retain such personnel as required to

assist the Committee;

and shall report to the House as soon as

possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

The said Special Committee is to be composed of: Messrs. Rustad (Convener), Cantelon, and Krog, and Mmes. Polak and Thorne.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply — in this chamber, the estimates of the Premier's office, and in Committee A, Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

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

The committee met at 3:33 p.m.

On Vote 8: Office of the Premier, $10,664,000 .

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me start by introducing some of my staff who are with me today. Jessica McDonald on my immediate left is the Deputy Minister to the Premier and the cabinet secretary. Dana Hayden, to the left of Ms. McDonald, is the deputy minister of strategic policy, natural resources and the economy, and many people are big fans of hers. Philip Steenkamp is the deputy minister of strategic policy, social development.

The activities of the Premier are aimed across government at achieving the five great goals that we've set for the decade ahead of us: to make B.C. the most educated and most literate jurisdiction on the continent; to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness; to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors; to lead the world in sustainable environmental management with the best air and water quality and the best fisheries management bar none; and to create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in the world.

We also through the Premier's office are pursuing a number of cross-government initiatives, including building a new relationship with first nations communities across British Columbia; taking full advantage of the Asia-Pacific gateway as Canada's Pacific province and building a strategy that, again, is cross-government; looking at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games as an opportunity for all British Columbians in all parts of this province to pursue their goals and objectives; building a more citizen-centred gov-

[ Page 2003 ]

ernment service; and providing for reforms in British Columbia, both in the Legislature and in the electoral system.

It seems important, to me, for us all to remember that most of the goals that have been outlined are actually goals that are embraced by all British Columbians. I would hope they are embraced by the members of the opposition as well as by members of the government.

[1535]

When we look at the primary goal, which is to create the best educated and most literate jurisdiction in North America, we've taken a number of initiatives to try and ensure that that takes place — not just the Learning Round Table which has recently been convened, including the B.C. Teachers Federation, the B.C. School Trustees, the B.C. School Superintendents' Association, the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals and the government, but also an investment of substantial additional dollars. In fact, the largest single increase in education investment that we've seen in a decade in British Columbia has been made.

Real progress has been made in eliminating some of the textbook challenges that parents and teachers have identified across the province, and we've taken what has been nationally recognized as a broad literacy strategy to make sure that we do build the kind of literacy in this province that's so critical to the long term for British Columbians. In fact, we've announced more than $40 million to support literacy programs through innovative literacy grants, adult literacy programs, Literacy Now, $10 million for textbooks and $3 million for Ready, Set, Learn.

We've tried to remember that the critical component of literacy is the individual citizen. For example, as we prepare young people for school, we're preparing them and providing them with their own books. We're trying to encourage them to read, and we've matched all of the dollars which are raised by both the Vancouver Sun and the Victoria Times Colonist Raise-a-Reader campaigns, because those are individual citizens making a contribution, putting in an effort and trying to be sure that we reach out and touch the communities across the province.

As we look to the future, one of our goals is to look at what measures we will use to see if we are making progress, what investments are required to make sure that progress is continuing and ongoing and that improvements are continually being made. I think a critical component of any long-term skills development strategy in British Columbia has got to start with the founding principle of literacy.

The second issue that we clearly have to address is the whole issue of healthy living and physical fitness. It's critical, I think, that we examine some of the options that are in front of us, and a good example of a cross-government initiative is the ActNow initiative which has been put in place and is really championed by the Health Ministry. We have set a number of goals for the government over the next decade to try and assure that we reach them. We will have to take actions. We will have to measure the results of those actions, and we will do that together as a government.

We will do that in on ongoing way as the Premier's estimates or Health Ministry estimates or other estimates come forward so that not just members of the opposition but the public, as well, can see whether or not we are reaching for our goals.

Let me outline some of them. First, healthy eating. We want to have a 20-percent increase in the people who are eating recommended daily servings of fruits and vegetables. Two, physical activity — a 20-percent increase in people who are physically active. Three, a reduction in tobacco use by 10 percent across the province. Four, a reduction in obesity in the province — a 20-percent reduction in the people who are classified as overweight or obese. And five, we would like to try and work to find programs to prevent fetal alcohol spectrum disorder — a 50-percent increase in women accessing prevention and information on risks of alcohol use during pregnancy.

The Action Schools program has been put in place to specifically touch all of our children in our public education system over the next few years to make sure that they, too, have happy, active and full lives. As you know, in terms of building a support for those who need our support, we have launched the Premier's council on aging and seniors issues to look at how we can take full advantage of this burgeoning opportunity that's there for us in terms of the demographics of seniors who can contribute to our economy and to the activities that take place in community after community.

We will have already, in September's budget, increased the support for seniors by $242 million over three years. We've renewed the seniors supplement, which is important. We've added to the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters in the SAFER program. We've signed an agreement with the federal government with regard to child care and early learning. We've established a plan for a provincewide 211 service, one-number access to community and social services. We, in fact, have the lowest personal income taxes for middle- and low-income earners in Canada, and that's a critically important component.

We've also launched a mayors' task force on homelessness and addictions. That has gone on. We have the largest budget we've had for socially assisted housing in the province. Again, we're trying to integrate services with mental health services and support services and addiction services as well as the homelessness activities that are taking place.

[1540]

We want to be recognized for sustainable environmental management. We have established a new legislative committee for sustainable aquaculture. We have been successful in stopping the SE2 power plant from going ahead in the Fraser Valley. Each of those things will have a long-term, positive impact on British Columbians.

Finally, in terms of the economy, I think most British Columbians recognize that over the last five years we've made substantial and significant process in terms of lowering our unemployment rate, which cur-

[ Page 2004 ]

rently in British Columbia is at the lowest level that it's been for the last 30 years.

[Applause.]

Thank you for that overwhelming support. We've got 5.1 percent, which is the lowest level in 30 years. I think it's also important that our youth unemployment is the lowest level that it has been since, actually, the start of reporting youth unemployment.

Every region of the province has been benefiting. Three regions have set record monthly low unemployment rates since the regions started reporting — the mainland southwest, the Thompson-Okanagan and the Cariboo. For the first time, unemployment rates in all regions of the province are below the national rate of 6.6 percent. For the sixth month in a row, every region has single-digit unemployment. More women are working, more young people are working, more British Columbians are working, and there are more opportunities for all of them. We want to keep building on that successful economy as we move into the future.

We've also said quite clearly that we want to look at regional development opportunities, so whether it's the northern development initiative, whether it's the north island–coast development initiative or the southern interior development initiative…. Those are specific opportunities for regional economies to build themselves, to look at their own solutions for their own challenges or, maybe more appropriately, to reach for the opportunities that are there for them with some resources that have been made available.

We need to keep our economy competitive if we are going to be successful in reaching our goal. We have done that in a number of ways. The Asia-Pacific Trade Council, the Leading Edge Endowment Fund and the Premier's Technology Council are all part of coming up with a comprehensive and thoughtful approach to building a competitive economy that provides opportunities in each part of this province.

I'm going to close with one quick comment, and that has to do with the new relationship with first nations in British Columbia. As you know, we are about to embark on a major first ministers meeting, the first one we've had in almost two decades in Canada to look at closing the gap between first nations and non–first nations British Columbians. I want to say that I think, first of all, the true leadership from here has come from the aboriginal leadership in British Columbia. They have been very constructive, and they have been thoughtful in their approach.

I believe that British Columbia is going to be seen across the country as leading in this regard. What we're really talking about is assuring that all British Columbians share the sense of optimism and hope, share the sense of excitement about this province's future.

As I have said many times before, I believe we do live in the best place on earth. I believe we live in a place that should open doors of opportunity to everybody that lives here. I believe that working together, there is nothing that we can't accomplish in British Columbia.

C. James: I would like to thank the Premier and thank his staff for the opportunity to go through estimates. As you know, this is my first opportunity to be able to canvass the budget, to canvass the Premier's office and to canvass the government agenda in a comprehensive way. So I look forward to this debate, and I thank you for the opportunity to do that.

I also, as I said in my first opening remarks to this Legislature a number of months ago, want to congratulate the Premier and his MLAs for forming government for a second term. I think this will be a good opportunity to look at the direction and the kinds of goals that the Premier has set and at the direction that he's taking government.

Just to give you an idea of the kinds of issues that I'll be pursuing over the next couple of days, I will be talking about issues that we know are of importance to British Columbians, issues that we know have been heard both through the campaign as well as over the last number of months. I'll be talking about issues such as seniors and the crisis in our forests. I'll certainly be talking about child protection and talking about areas such as the Olympics.

[1545]

I will be providing an opportunity to a couple of my colleagues to be able to ask some questions. Certainly, our critic for Intergovernmental Relations will have an opportunity to raise some questions. Other than that, I think I'll get right into our questions. I know we don't have a lot of time over the next couple of days, so I want to make sure we have an opportunity for a good thorough debate.

The first area I'd like to focus on — and the Premier mentioned it in his comments as an area of importance to him and to his government — is the whole area of seniors. What we've seen in many areas of this government, including seniors, is that often we see the right words there, but the actions that follow don't necessarily meet the words and the goals and the direction. Certainly, we would support our seniors. But there are some directions in the record of this government that raise questions about the commitment to seniors. That's certainly a comment that we heard over and over and over again during the election campaign.

I want to start off by asking the Premier…. He mentioned the seniors advisory council as one of the areas that he thinks is a wonderful opportunity to receive regular advice from seniors. I'd like to ask the Premier whether he thinks having the council of the senior advisory — getting some information from the people on that seniors advisory council — might have changed the direction that he took with seniors over the last four years.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think one of the critical things about the Council on Aging and Seniors Issues is that we have to look to the future with regard to what the challenges are that seniors face, but more importantly, what are the opportunities?

Seniors have changed dramatically. I think that when you talk to Dr. Patricia Baird, who is recognized

[ Page 2005 ]

across the country for her expertise, one of the things that she is most excited about is taking advantage of the huge human resource opportunities that are in front of us in terms of seniors. Now, will they provide us with additional initiatives or suggestions on how we can move ahead? My answer is quite simply yes, I believe they will. Will we learn from them? My answer is yes, with regard to that.

In terms of what we as a government are trying to accomplish with seniors, to the Leader of the Opposition, I think what we're trying to do is change what was a traditional and, frankly, fairly static response to seniors challenges and to provide a continuum of services to seniors so that you meet their needs in their communities, in their homes. We try and make sure that we are providing that broad range, if you want, from home to institutional care that may be required.

I think when you look at seniors, you have to recognize that there have been some significant financial commitments made by this government to seniors — whether it's the low-income seniors who have benefited from the opportunities that have been created through the new Pharmacare system, whether it's the low-income seniors who benefited from the new MSP system or whether it's the low-income seniors who've benefited from the new taxes that were brought in, in February 2005.

Even more importantly, when we look at what took place in the September budget, what I think we've clearly seen is a commitment not just to expand and improve housing opportunities for seniors — I think it's $150 million that's been provided for that — but also to provide, again, for the supports that lower-income seniors need.

Having said that, I think we have to recognize that seniors in British Columbia are an enormous resource for us. One of the things I found most encouraging at the conference centre where we brought together the seniors council was to hear them talk about what opportunities were in front of them and what they could do in terms of building, not just improving our health care system but adding to the quality of life — for example, the seniors mentorship program and literacy for kids in schools, the seniors program in terms of helping people manage some of the issues that they face in their day-to-day lives.

All of those things are possibilities, and I would certainly hope that the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues will come forward with recommendations not just recognizing some of the challenges that we may face with aging, because that will create huge institutional change, but also recognizing the opportunities that seniors would like to be able to take advantage of. I think that's going to be critical as we move ahead.

[1550]

C. James: I appreciate the Premier's comments. There's no question that listening to the voices of seniors is important.

Just to delve in a little more to the council that the Premier talked about, I wonder if the Premier could tell me what the difference is between the current Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors, which is put in place now by the Premier, and the previous provincial Seniors Advisory Council. What are those differences?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the primary difference is that in the past, councils tended to look at simply providing additional services — which were fine and in many cases were worthwhile. What the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues is looking at is that we're all getting older. Let me give an example. At some point in time, people decided that you were supposed to retire at 65. There are a lot of people who don't feel they want to retire. They don't need to retire at 65; they'd rather keep working and keep going on. We have to look at that and look at mandatory retirement and say: "What does that mean?"

If you were at the presentation, one of the things that was pointed out is that we have a demographic change where we have more and more people that are going to be requiring services and fewer and fewer people that can help pay for them. One of the things the council has come forward and said to us is: "We'd like to keep working if possible. We'd like to have the choice if possible."

So we've said to the council: "If that's what's on your agenda…." I want to be clear. This agenda will be set, at least in detail, by the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues. Here's an example, though. Our neighbourhoods, generally across the board in British Columbia, are based on single-family residential homes. That's how our cities were built. Whether you're living in Victoria or Terrace or Cranbrook, if you go you'll see a number of homes that are single-family residential homes — large yards, different kind of housing construction, etc.

But they're really there for what I would call the traditional family, meaning the family that most of us who are my age — certainly not the leader's age, but my age — will remember: a mother, a father, two or three kids at home, and generally one parent is at work. That's how we built our neighbourhoods.

They were younger. Funny, I was a lot younger in 1950 than I am in 2005. What's happened is — and I can use my own example of this — that seniors decide they can no longer deal with the single-family home. They can't put up with it. They need a different kind of accommodation. You go and look at a neighbourhood, and they say: "There's none of that accommodation available in my neighbourhood." You go to cities or towns, and they may say: "Well, we can't change that housing shape because that's not what we're used to. It's not a single-family residential home."

One of the things I'm hoping the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues will look at is how we change our neighbourhoods to accommodate aging seniors, aging British Columbians. There's no question we will have a small population that will need increased support. There's also no question that as we get new technologies and build new understandings of what we can do, we can keep people independent in their homes longer, with the higher quality of life, if we

[ Page 2006 ]

provide for that continuum of services. I'm hopeful that the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues will examine those things.

I don't remember all the names of all the members, but they're from all over the province. They have a broad range of experience. What they're really, I think, focusing on in this particular time as they go and have their meetings over the next year is: how do we make sure that healthy seniors have an opportunity to participate fully, that we give them the support they need to pursue a healthy lifestyle, an independent lifestyle, and the highest possible quality of life? I'm sure we're going to get some additional responses on that.

We think it's also important that they identify pressing needs for seniors. What are they? Let's hear from them, not try and impose it on them, but let's hear from them.

I want to say this in the right way. I'm hopeful that members of the opposition will be able to participate with a number of these activities and events across the province. It was actually pretty energizing to be there and hear from seniors about what they think we can do. It's not necessarily investing more money. It might be changing the way that we do things. It might be looking differently at how we respond with the program. It could be something as simple as making sure that people who have more difficulty hearing know how to access services, that people who have more difficulty seeing know how to access services.

[1555]

Again, let me use myself as an example as an oncoming senior. I often see government reports….

Can I borrow that book there, Mr. Clerk, for a second?

This is the fascinating Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice . There's no senior that could read that — right? As you get older, you need bigger print.

Frankly, Mr. Clerk, I'd prefer pictures in this book, if it's okay with you.

As we look at how we communicate with the public, we have to think of the changing needs that we have — whether it's with seniors or others — but seniors may well be one of the areas we would do that.

The Chair: I remind the Premier about using props.

C. James: I appreciate those comments around seniors and listening to the voice of seniors. I think, in fact, that's critical. It's critical, whether we're talking about seniors or about other areas, that we listen to the voices of those with experience in the area that government is making decisions about. So I couldn't agree more. I think the issue of seniors is critical, and I support having a seniors council.

What I am concerned about, though…. I ask the Premier to reflect back, perhaps, on whether the fact that he eliminated the seniors council in 2002 had any impact on the decisions that he made in his government over that time period, decisions like trying to take away the seniors bus pass or separating seniors from long-term care homes where they were, the MSP premiums — decisions that directly impacted seniors. Yet because of the decision in 2002, seniors voices weren't heard.

So my question to the Premier is: does he think that had an impact on the decisions that he made, and is that why he brought back a seniors advisory council after he got rid of it in 2002? The second part of that question is: how will the information from the current seniors council come forward to government and influence the decisions and direction of government?

Hon. G. Campbell: I guess the short answer on whether or not the seniors council would have helped us with the idea that was brought forward to eliminate the bus pass…. I don't really think we needed the seniors council; the seniors community let us know pretty quickly that that wasn't required.

What we've tried to do in terms of MSP and Pharmacare is focus down the benefits to those who are most in need. I don't think we should try and hide from this. There's no question that when you make these changes, they can be disruptive. But I know now that the Pharmacare program we have in British Columbia is one of the most expansive in Canada, if not the most expansive. It is the fairest. About a quarter- million low-income seniors actually had their Pharmacare costs reduced. With MSP, I think it was about a quarter million–plus low-income seniors who had their premiums either reduced or eliminated.

So I think the principles that we were acting on through the first term were really principles that said that low-income seniors should actually benefit from…. Whatever we could do, we should try and focus it down on the people that were the lowest-income seniors. The initiatives that we've undertaken with regard to the task force — the current one — on seniors and aging issues are to recognize that they sort of go beyond what we have traditionally called seniors issues.

One of the things I found most interesting in talking to the council was that they actually would like to find a way we can talk about something other than seniors, because they think "seniors" pushes us over and stops us thinking about what the issue actually is. For people that are older and have healthy lives, the issue is to try and be sure that they have sensible care and accommodation and a continuum of care, which is the big shift that's taking place.

I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that we are not happy with what we were able to accomplish from 2001 to 2005. We are confident that we will have not just the 5,000 units prepared by 2008, but there are additional resources that have been put in place for that — $75 million this year, I think, and $75 million next year.

[1600]

We are encouraged by the activities that are taking place across the board. We hope to improve seniors' lives by healthier lifestyles, by increasing independence, by creating housing options for them and by looking at various service options that may be available

[ Page 2007 ]

to them. I would hope that the seniors' Council on Aging will provide a framework for all of us.

To answer the second part of the leader's question, it's my understanding that the whole council is not going to travel to the whole province. To be blunt, I believe that their primary benefit to us will be to be as independent from you and me as is possible and to come forward and say to us: "This is what we heard in Prince George. This is what we heard in Cranbrook."

They are going to look at some specific areas of concern, but they will set those agendas. It may be early retirement. It may be community integration. It may be housing services. It may be volunteering. I can't be sure what they're going to do. My hope is that they will then prepare a report. They will submit it to my office. It will be a public report. I think that's important. Their report and their recommendations will be made public. Then government will have to act on where we're going and what we're doing.

C. James: I appreciate those comments, and I appreciate the direction. I think it's very important that there be an opportunity for that report to come forward, for that report to be public and for us to hear on the broadest issues. I also support the direction in making sure that we hear from the voices of seniors on all sorts of issues, not just senior-specific issues, because seniors obviously have an investment in education. They obviously have an investment in the economy. They have an investment in their communities.

I think the opportunity to actually hear from seniors on a broad range of issues is a great direction to go and a wonderful opportunity for all of us on both sides of this House.

Madam Chair, I'm going to turn over my opportunity to my colleague for a few minutes, then move to intergovernmental relations for a little bit, and then come back to seniors issues.

A. Dix: I just had a few questions for the Premier. It's really more to satisfy my curiosity about things and how things work in the Premier's office than anything else. I wanted to ask the Premier about the process of government reorganization and decisions that the Premier makes with respect to the executive council, the responsibilities of the executive council and so on.

As the Premier knows, in June he made the decision to move child and youth mental health from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to the Ministry of Health. A couple of weeks later we raised some issues about that, and the Premier moved them back.

I wanted to ask the Premier just how that process works. Was there some sort of review that went on before that decision was made? Did the Premier give thought to it? Were there briefings for the Premier? Was there a coming-together and looking at the whole of government and at mental health issues? How did that decision get made?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, if I can just step back a moment for the member, one of the things that I was concerned about as we moved through the transition to the new government was to try and align responsibilities and accountabilities into ministries so that they were not dispersed. I'll use another example than this one for a second. For example, fetal alcohol syndrome disorder had nine different ministries, at one point, that were involved with it, and people wondered why no one seemed to really have accountability for it to drive it forward. I moved it over to the minister of state at the time and said: "Get this organized, and pull it together."

[1605]

With regard to child and youth mental health, I think there are a couple of pretty straightforward answers for it. First, mental health is a Health issue. It's a mental health issue. We felt that that was a place where, if you left it in Health, they could deal with it best. Mental health is often linked with addictions. Addiction services, as the member will know, are now in the Health Ministry, and that's important. One of the challenges we had to look at was how we would manage that as well as we could for the children and youth who were involved.

There was also some sense, at least from the office in discussions that we had, that there would be a better transition from youth to adult services that were made available. That's why the decision was made.

A. Dix: Of course, the Premier reversed that decision within two weeks. I understand, I guess, the Premier's comments about the importance of keeping mental health services in Health, but I guess I'm just a little confused as to the process.

This was one of the recommendations of Justice Gove: to try and bring children's services together. As the Premier knows, it's one of the great, real, profound tragedies in our province: what occurred at times in the past when children fell through the cracks because there wasn't a comprehensive menu of services. One ministry was dealing with a child, another ministry was dealing with them for another part of their life, and the two never talked. The idea of bringing together a Ministry of Children and Families and bringing those services together was to deal with precisely that point.

I guess what I find confusing about a decision in a really important area…. It's something the Premier has always considered very important, which is mental health services. He's spoken very eloquently about it. How could it happen that a mistake was made? Does he acknowledge that a mistake was made, that not enough thought was given to that? Can he explain just how that process might have worked that would have led to a decision to move child and youth mental health services one week and a decision to move it back the next?

Hon. G. Campbell: Fortunately, I'm surrounded by deputies who can remind me of this. The primary thing that they reminded me of is that there are strong views

[ Page 2008 ]

on both sides of this issue — not one deputy's and the other's, but in terms of where we're going.

We did think it was important that we align mental health with the Health Ministry. We did work on that. The child and youth officer was not consulted — as, I think, the member would know. It wouldn't be usual for us to consult with regard to the structures of government, how we manage those and align their responsibilities.

However, when the child and youth officer talked with us, she agreed on a couple of things. First, it was a significant issue. It was a real challenge for government, and it was a challenge that we had responded to structurally, if you want. To put not too fancy a word on it, I think that her initial response to us was: "It may be better for you not to do this structurally, and to do it culturally instead." So we decided: "Okay, we'll try and learn from that." We made the shift back, and the primary drive behind that shift back is to try and ensure that we have the cultural shift, as opposed to the structural one.

I think that when Justice Gove made his first report there were a number of challenges across government with regard to children and children in care. He dealt in significant part with some structural changes, as the member has suggested. We decided in this case, after consulting with the child and youth officer, that we would try and pursue this using, instead of the structural change, the cultural change.

Currently the deputies of both the Minister of Children and Family Development and of the Minister of Health are being asked to make sure that there are not gaps, that there's no place for a child or youth to fall through, that there is open communication between the two ministries on this and that we do our best to provide service.

At the end of the day, I would say this: the member is correct. Our task is to provide effective services, not to hive services off over here or there but to say, "What are we trying to accomplish?" and to try to provide them as effectively as possible, which is what we were trying to do.

[1610]

We are back at what was identified by everyone as a significant issue during the transition. It was identified as a significant issue, which is why we made the structural change. When the child and youth officer talked with us, I think she was clear that it was an issue. She felt there was another way that we could approach it. We, frankly, listened to her and said, "Let's try and approach it that way, and let's try and follow it through." We are following it through now. If it's not successful and we're not being as effective as we should be with dealing with that, then we still maintain the option of making the structural shifts, if that's necessary.

A. Dix: This will be my last question. The member of our caucus responsible for intergovernmental relations will take over from here. I just want to ask one last question on this point.

I think a lot of people who work in this area feel very strongly that the responsibility should stay with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I appreciate what the Premier said about ministries working together, and that's really, really important, particularly in this area. The issues are just too serious for any other approach.

Can he give them the assurance that it's his intention to keep the line responsibilities for this in the Ministry of Children and Family Development for the foreseeable future?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think in terms of the assurances that people would need who are advocates for the children and family development model is that it will be in Children and Family Development. We are going to monitor it. We are going to see whether it's effective or not, and we maintain the option of changing it should we decide it has to be changed.

I think it's also fair to say that we will do that option openly. We will explain why we think it has got to be done. We will include the children and youth officer in that discussion, but we will reserve the right to make the change if we need to make the change.

M. Sather: It gives me pleasure to join in these debates in the estimates for the Premier's office. I wanted, in my role as Intergovernmental Relations critic, to address some of the issues that have reference to relations between our province and other jurisdictions. For example, I wanted to first talk about the sale of Terasen Gas to Kinder Morgan of the United States.

As the Premier will know, this has been a very contentious issue in British Columbia. A lot of people have expressed their concerns about it — concerns about service levels and jobs and concern about our control over our energy resources. These people have written a lot of letters to the B.C. Utilities Commission to express their concern.

As we know, they did not get the opportunity, the format, to ask their oral questions before the Utilities Commission. A great deal of these questions, I believe, also went to the Premier's office. I wanted to ask: who in the Premier's office worked on this file for the sale of Terasen Gas?

Hon. G. Campbell: There would be no one specifically allocated to this responsibility out of the Premier's office. This would be covered under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates, which are yet to come. He would be the lead voice in terms of government.

M. Sather: I want to ask, then: if the Premier is not the lead person or agency — or his office — did the Premier's office have any involvement whatsoever in the sale?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think, other than being phoned and being told that there was going to be an announcement, we had no involvement whatsoever in

[ Page 2009 ]

the sale. We did have involvement, obviously, as part of government policy, in establishing an independent utilities commission.

The member and the public should be confident that in fact, the resources of British Columbia remain the resources of British Columbia. This will have no impact whatsoever with regard to that. But the details of this particular discussion should be covered in the estimates of the Minister of Energy and Mines.

[1615]

M. Sather: I'll move on, then, to another subject and canvass the Premier's involvement, or his staff's involvement, perhaps. Another issue of great importance to all British Columbians, of course, has been the softwood lumber dispute that has been broiling for many years. There have been different attempts to solve it. Most of them have proven to be short term, unfortunately, and we now find ourselves again in the situation of trying to resolve a dispute that is costing us billions of dollars in Canada, and particularly in British Columbia.

We have talked to the members opposite in the Premier's office about what could be done to bring some pressure, if you will, to bear on this issue. The Premier will recall that the member for Nelson-Creston has addressed this issue several times. One of the suggestions has been around…. I might add it's not only the suggestion of our caucus but also of the Prime Minister, when he spoke recently and said that this was a serious issue, that we needed our partners in the United States to act in good faith, that we couldn't ensure energy security and that we needed to address these issues in tandem, if need be.

My question to the Premier regarding this issue is about the issue of linking the sale of Terasen Gas with the softwood lumber dispute, which as he will know, we've canvassed. That issue has been decided insofar as the B.C. Utilities Commission has ruled on the sale. The federal government has also ruled on that sale. I would like to know if there was anyone in the Premier's office who was at any point tasked with looking at the option — whether linkage might have been an option from the Premier's perspective.

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me go back for a second with regard to the softwood lumber dispute and the Prime Minister. British Columbia, since we've been government…. We were elected first in the summer of 2001. Softwood Lumber 4, as I think it was called at the time, had expired, and we were concerned that there had been a fair amount of drift over the year before. We immediately took that up. I said to the Prime Minister of the day that we expected British Columbia to be at the head of the table in terms of how the country dealt with this.

I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister's comments. They actually echoed the comments that I had made following the NAFTA ruling in early August of this year. The comment was really simply this: if your whole framework for trade is being undercut by the action of one party, you have to ask yourselves questions about the whole framework for trade. We have consistently said, as a province, to the United States that if they're looking for energy security, if they're looking for a reliable supplier, then the most reliable supplier they have of energy happens to be Canada.

We have a couple of specific principles that we've been pursuing throughout our discussions with regard to softwood, as frustrating as they've been for all of us not just in this chamber but across this province. One is that it has to be a good deal for British Columbia.

The second is that it has to be done within a national context, because it is the nation that's negotiating with the nation. I'm sure the member opposite understands how difficult this is. We have a dispersed forest industry in British Columbia. Now multiply that by ten. That's what the national government faces.

In the United States, I've met with the Vice-President on this. I've met with the Secretary of Commerce on this. The administration has got a position, Congress has had a second position, and the industry has had a third position. It's a multiheaded negotiation that has been taking place.

We've been very clear that we want this to be a Canadian position. So when the Prime Minister said to the United States in, I think, the second half of August or maybe early September, "Look, this is about our whole trading relationship," he was actually echoing what British Columbia had said coming out of the NAFTA ruling.

[1620]

In terms of connecting one specific private sector initiative to that, that was not Canada's position. It has not been, that I am aware of.

I talked with staff about whether that made sense or not, could it be done, what would the impacts…? I'm sure I've had discussions with my staff with regard to that, but we have not launched that, because the fact is that may well be an "energy initiative" for Canada. An energy initiative for Canada does not just include British Columbia. It includes the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec. We have always been aware of that.

I actually support what the Prime Minister said. We advocated what the Prime Minister said. We also are carrying on with business in British Columbia, and we're carrying on with the protections that we provided to the public through the BCUC. The primary protection that that has provided the public is it's independent. We have not undermined the quasi-judicial nature of the BCUC, and we've not tried to interfere with that. That, frankly, is exactly what every single other government has done when they've dealt with these sorts of things. I don't believe there has been a time when there has been a government directive with regard to this kind of an initiative to the BCUC.

M. Sather: I do recall the Premier's comments at the time in support of what the Prime Minister was saying, but I wanted to clarify something about what the Premier has said. With regard to linkage, I understood the

[ Page 2010 ]

Premier to say that it is a bigger issue than just British Columbia. That is, there are many provinces involved in softwood lumber, although British Columbia is obviously a very important one. Did I understand the Premier to say that he would not consider linkage because Terasen is a B.C. company as opposed to being a nationwide company? Was that part of the reasoning?

Hon. G. Campbell: No. We have always been part of a national initiative with regard to solving softwood, because we believe that's the way that British Columbia and the United States and Canada will get to a resolution.

M. Sather: Well, it has been a bit confusing for British Columbians, I think, on this issue, because although, as the Premier is expressing, he has supported what some characterize as the Prime Minister's tough stance, we have heard the Forests Minister say things that would indicate that this is not a direction at all that we would want to go in the province. I was just wondering; I would like to ask the Premier…. He has mentioned that he has met with…. I believe Condoleezza Rice is one he might have mentioned. I want to ask the Premier if he, with or without the Forests Minister, had met with the federal government to discuss the linkage issue.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't recall a time when we have met and said the meeting is about linkage. We have met and said the meeting's about finding a resolution.

Generally, when I'm meeting with the federal government, we are talking about what strategies we could follow. Is there a campaign we could carry out in the United States to identify for Americans the strength…? Or the policy initiatives that we might take — how do those policy initiatives affect B.C. forest workers versus Quebec's forest workers versus Alberta's? Those sorts of initiatives. The majority of those initiatives have been undertaken by the Minister of Forests on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

I did undertake an initiative, because I felt it was important that Canada know that we could move forward with a united voice towards a resolution. I did ask for a meeting with both the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of Ontario, because I felt it was critical, in terms of Canada's negotiating position, that they know that if they went and negotiated, they had support of the provinces behind them, so they could act with confidence and direction in where they were going. I think that actually has proven fruitful. But we have never actually sat down and said: "Let's look at linkage."

[1625]

I could tell the member, though, that when the issue of linkage came up at the Council of the Federation, there was a great disparity of positions with regard to that. I could think of linkage. Here's a linkage. Let's link the auto plan to it. Now, I don't think it's very hard for people to figure out that Ontario may not be keen on linking the auto plan to the resolution of softwood. Or you could say: "Let's link the sale of Quebec or British Columbia energy." Well, there are people in Quebec who wouldn't think that made a lot of sense.

There are people in British Columbia who would say that wouldn't make a lot of sense. There are certainly people in Alberta that said specifically at the Council of the Federation: "No, that shouldn't be on the table."

What we've been trying to do is work within what I think is actually the broad Canadian context to find a resolution that will benefit British Columbians. I do think we should not underestimate that challenge.

Having said that, we should recognize we've won. The challenge isn't whether we've won with regard to NAFTA or not. The challenge is that the Americans have said they're not going to pay attention to it. Then they'll go over and say: "Well, we like the WTO ruling this week." The fact is that the primary trade framework agreement between the United States and Canada is not the WTO; it's NAFTA.

What I've said, what the Prime Minister has said and, I believe, what the Premiers have said, unanimously, is that it is imperative the Americans live up to their word. They're not doing that yet. We still say that. The Prime Minister, I think, went to New York and said the Americans should immediately return $3.5 billion, which came up to the time of the NAFTA ruling. We agree with that.

There has not been a specific meeting on linkages. There has certainly been public discussion about it, but Canada has not put that on the table yet. What Canada has said is: "Actually, everyone should understand this." This is a big issue for Canadians — that NAFTA itself is undermined by the Americans' action, not by ours.

It's a very slow dispute resolution mechanism. It's very cumbersome. It's burdened by all kinds of legal this, that and the next things, but we've gone through that for the last three and a half to four years, and we won. The Americans have said: "Well, gee, maybe we should negotiate." No, that's actually not it. The legal framework is what gives us the opportunity to negotiate and come to a mutual agreement. When that mutual agreement doesn't come forth and the negotiation doesn't bear fruit, then you've got to be able to count on a legal document. So far we've not been able to count on that with the Americans.

So far the Prime Minister has been very clear that he expects the Americans to return the $3.5 billion and send a clear message that they intend to live up to the spirit of NAFTA.

One last good bit of news was that I understand that the other day the House of Representatives removed what they call the Byrd amendment. The Byrd amendment said that if any industry sector challenged someone and if there were duties that were collected, it would go to the industry sector. Well, who knows if it gets through? But at least they're starting to understand that that doesn't make any sense and doesn't move us to a productive trading relationship with the United States. It moves us further away from it.

[ Page 2011 ]

M. Sather: The Premier certainly has outlined the frustrations that we've all felt in this dispute. We know that our allies — in this case, allies that we're having some difficulty with — have used many mechanisms, including going to the Extraordinary Challenge Committee frequently to try to, in effect…. It has had the effect, in some degree, of stymieing our wins. That's why we're in this position of suggesting anything — we as Canadians. And there's a broad range of people who are suggesting that we go so far as to link energy sales to this dispute.

One of those persons that the Premier will know has made that suggestion is Sen. Pat Carney. I was wondering if the Premier or anyone in his office has had discussions with the Senator about the linkage issue.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not aware of anyone having discussions specifically with Senator Carney with regard to this issue.

M. Sather: Well, there is a list that has been canvassed before of others that have taken this position: former Social Credit Premier Bill Vander Zalm; former director of the B.C. Liberal caucus Adam Leamy; free trade agreement architects Derek Burney, Allan Gotleib, Simon Reisman and Gordon Ritchie. I would like to know, then, if the Premier could tell this House whether he or any of his staff has met with any of these individuals regarding this issue.

[1630]

Hon. G. Campbell: I think there are two things that I would mention. The first one is that in terms of those individual names, I can't tell you if someone has ever talked with them or if they've volunteered their advice with regard to it. I can tell you this. If they have those recommendations, the jurisdiction they should be providing those recommendations to is the federal government.

We have told the federal government that we are part of a Canadian strategy. We're going to work with that. We're going to continue to build on that.

I think it is important. There is a tendency for us to think: wouldn't it be great if we just acted unilaterally? Unilateral action from British Columbia will not work on behalf of British Columbians. I'm confident of that. We've seen provincial governments in the past try to do that. Former Premiers have tried to do that. In fact, it cost British Columbia $125 million — and coastal communities $125 million, up and down the coast of British Columbia — when there was an effort at unilateral action in foreign relations from British Columbia.

My goal is, certainly, to listen to all the voices but to be as constructive and positive as we can be as we move forward on a national agenda. As I mentioned to the member earlier, the initiative that has been undertaken has been to hold provinces together so that Canada can speak with one voice.

In terms of the linkage discussion, we have never been engaged by Canada in saying to what extent linkage…. I've heard the federal minister of energy hypothesize what might happen if we had linkage. I've heard others talk about that. But it has not been something that's been part of the discussion between British Columbia or the provinces and the federal government, except in the way that I mentioned to the member earlier.

M. Sather: I recognize and recall the issue the Premier is talking about with regard to what he's described as unilateral actions. At that time, though, I might suggest, the relationship with the Prime Minister was, perhaps, not as close as the relationship with this Premier and this Prime Minister. Given, also, that this Prime Minister is himself considering this option, I think there might be more of an opportunity this time than there was in the past.

I wanted to ask, additionally, just to pursue a little bit further the issue of those discussions and whether or not they'd taken place…. I understand that the Premier's special adviser, if that's the correct title for Mr. Dobell…. Did he have any discussions about linkage in his recent trips to Ottawa, with those officials or others?

Hon. G. Campbell: I am not aware that my special adviser has done that at any time. It's never been on an agenda that he has brought to me and said: "What about this, this or this?" Again, the discussions have been much higher range. There have been some public discussions in the media. There have been the sorts of discussions I mentioned at the Council of the Federation, but there has never been an initiative by the federal government to come to us and say: "What about linkage?"

Candidly, you know, there are huge economic costs to linkage when you look at a province like Alberta or Ontario, where you may have some real impact right away. The issue in terms of linkage always is: who's going to pay the price? If the price is in Canadian jobs and Canadian families, then I think the federal government is probably reticent to do that.

To the member opposite: in terms of the relationship that I have with the Prime Minister, I think it's because I'm clear about what we are able to do and what we're not able to do. I don't try and trespass on their jurisdiction. Frankly, I ask them on a regular basis not to trespass on our jurisdiction, because I think we're better at it than they are.

This is an example where we have tried to work in concert with the federal government. We have tried to work constructively with the federal government. I think it's fair to say that the federal government is very clear that this is a B.C. lead file. In other words, all the other provinces are listened to, but British Columbia is the lead on this file. I think we have to continue to pursue that. We're glad to respond to federal initiatives if they come forward with them, but at this point, they haven't done that.

M. Sather: I would then assume, perhaps, that there have been some delegations that have come forward to pursue this same question of linkage. Has the

[ Page 2012 ]

Premier or his staff met with any delegations on this subject?

Hon. G. Campbell: No, I have not. I'm not aware of the delegations. I haven't been asked. If I was, I would actually direct the delegations to the federal minister responsible.

[1635]

M. Sather: I'd like to switch to another topic, that being the fallout from the B.C. Rail deal, with CN Rail now taking responsibility for or ownership of the business. We know that the government has — and this has been canvassed during question period — made itself harmless with regard to maintenance costs, liability or insurance. This has been a concern for landowners, certainly, that they're facing some of these kinds of costs. I would like to ask the Premier who in his office has been assigned to the CN file in this regard.

Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, there is no line responsibility in the Premier's office for the B.C. Rail investment partnership. Our office offers guidance. We offer coordination. We give direction when necessary. The kinds of questions that the member is asking actually should have been canvassed during the Transportation estimates. My understanding is that there were 13 hours and 40 minutes of Transportation estimates. There wasn't one question on B.C. Rail.

The B.C. Rail investment partnership is there. It's available to pursue in terms of the Transportation estimates. I do want all the members opposite to understand that there are not two governments here. There's one government. There are line ministries with line accountabilities that should be pursued in their estimates. The Premier's office really has a coordinative and directive kind of function, as opposed to specific line responsibilities for each of the activities of government.

M. Sather: I should clarify, of course, that I was speaking about the crossings that have