2008 Legislative
Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(Blues)
HANSARD BLUES DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); B. Lekstrom in the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee met at 2:37 p.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $14,102,000 (continued). [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd like to take us back to the last question that we closed off on this morning when we were walking through the federal government aid package. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Premier listed a whole number of announcements that he made, and they were related to the $85 million. He talked about the $17.25 million, the $26.25 million. I'd just like to clarify, again, that those are federal dollars. My question to the Premier was: what provincial programs are in place that individual workers can apply to, with provincial dollars — not federal dollars, as those individual programs were? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I want the Leader of the Opposition to be clear that the $129 million is fully a federal tax commitment to the forest workers of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have a Forestry revitalization trust, which was provided to forest workers. I think that was in the year 2003. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What we have been trying to do in forestry in British Columbia is build a platform where workers could find work in the sector or find work for their families in other sectors, as we go through the challenge of the pine beetle as well as the challenge of the rising Canadian dollar. We have been trying to create a competitive environment where forest companies can benefit from the market-based stumpage that would reduce some of their costs to make them more competitive over the long term. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All of those things are about securing forest jobs, not just for today but for tomorrow. I've had the opportunity to meet with a number of forest workers, as has the Minister of Forests, through the round table to discuss further steps that may be taken. But at this point, the millions of dollars that we have put in have really been based on building a future for the industry in rural communities across the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1440]
C. James: I'd ask the Premier how it's going, but I know his response. We just need to take a look at the number of communities that are going under, the jobs that are being lost and the mills that are being closed to be pretty clear about the direction that it's heading. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I'd like to ask the Premier again, because it appears…. I understand that it's $129 million. That's federal dollars. That is, in fact, what we've been canvassing since we've started the forestry section. My question to the Premier was…. The Premier talked about the fact that the province has put all kinds of resources into the forest industry. What individual provincial program can individual workers apply to, to assist them? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The B.C. forestry revitalization trust was a program that forest workers could apply to. It's $133 million. We are doing more than simply trying to provide for the issues that we're dealing with today. We've been trying to build a long-term forest industry that keeps people at work as they would like to be at work. So there will be jobs in forestry, in reforestation, in a whole series of areas that people can apply to become part of. That will help secure their long-term future in the industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'll take that as a no — that there isn't a provincial program for individuals to apply to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Premier talked earlier about the federal program, the money provided through federal dollars. Could the Premier then explain to us how tuition assistance is going to help displaced workers who need immediate financial aid, who are struggling to pay their mortgages and who are struggling to put food on the table? I have to say that in Mackenzie we heard that they're looking at creating a food bank for students in that area because of the struggles families are having. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question to the Premier would be: how much provincial money is going in to assist those families? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Unfortunately, some workers are in a position of collecting employment insurance. The purpose of the tuition assistance program is to provide workers with the resources they need so that they can take courses that they feel would be to their benefit or would upgrade their skills or whatever. That's the intent of the tuition assistance program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd like to just remind the Premier of the statistics. Just since January of this year we've had more than 11,000 forest jobs gone. The Premier announced $17.25 million in federal money as tuition assistance, to a maximum of $5,000 per worker. That's fewer than 3,500 workers. My question is to the Premier. How does he explain to the other 9,500 displaced workers what they get? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I think I said earlier in this discussion that what we have tried to do with the community development trust is provide workers with an array of choices. So not all forest workers in the forest industry are, in fact, going to be displaced workers in the long term. Some are going to decide that they want to have transition assistance, and there's $80-some-odd million available for those workers to make the transition and bridge to retirement. We think that's a way of providing them with support. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The $17 million is to provide for tuition assistance, which we think is going to be something that's beneficial to workers who are, in fact, taking employment insurance today. We have additional resources available to help stabilize communities, to help find additional work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I think it's important to recognize that some forest workers will find other employment. That may well be in the construction industry. It may be in the mining industry. It may be in the energy industry. We are not trying to restrict workers' movement. In fact, we're trying to encourage jobs to be created in the province, all over the province, that will, in fact, provide for additional job opportunities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The bioenergy strategy is about providing for additional investment opportunities and additional job opportunities for forest workers in the forest industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1445]
C. James: Yes, we know the government is encouraging people to look at other work, when the Minister of Agriculture's response was to offer flights to Alberta for individual workers. That's the response of this government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is around eligibility for these programs funded — again, I must remind us all — out of federal dollars, not provincial dollars, because the province hasn't kicked in to match the federal dollars. The cutoff date is May 1, 2007. My question to the Premier is: why was that date set? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The Associate Deputy Minister of Labour was head of the negotiating team on behalf of the government. He worked with industry sectors, with labour, etc. The May 1, 2007, date was established because the feeling was that it would capture the majority of the workers that were directly impacted. Workers who had gone through a transition earlier were in a position where they could have taken, for example, advantage of the Canadian labour market development agreement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All of those things were taken into consideration in work with industry and with labour as we created this package to try and deal with the rapidly rising Canadian dollar, the collapse of the American housing market, the challenge with the sub-prime financial situation in the United States. All of those have impacts on what has taken place. We tried to take those into consideration in coming up with the eligibility criteria with industry and with labour. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: As we all know, there were certainly challenges — whether it was dollar, whether it was housing crisis, whether it was the American market — well before May 1, 2007. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question, then, to the Premier would be: what discussions took place with any of his staff who are part of that group that put together the specifics around this aid package? What discussion took place around workers pre–May 1, 2007, and the impacts they were going to face? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I think that the effort was made to look at the industry and the impacts that the industry was facing. Discussions were led, as I mentioned, by the Associate Deputy Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. The consultations took place with unions, employer groups, industry, first nations and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1450]
It was clear that with $129 million, we wanted to maximize the benefits for workers. We wanted to maximize the benefits for workers who were making a transition, and you'll note from the resources available that, frankly, the largest majority of those dollars was going for workers. The tuition assistance is for workers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On top of that, we felt it was important for us to look at how we could provide for some stabilization for communities. There are communities that are very dependent on forestry in their areas. Mackenzie would be one; Fort St. James would be another. The fact is that in other communities, there is a far more dynamic labour market, with labour shortages that people could take advantage of. So the understanding that was reached by all who were involved in that discussion was that the resource should be focused first on those communities that were the hardest hit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's what's happening now. We have ministry representatives in both Mackenzie and Fort St. James to look at strategies for how we can stabilize those communities — which are equally important, I should say, to the families involved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd like to go back again to ask the Premier. I understand that the committee came together, that they looked at an eligibility date. No surprise — $129 million is all the money that's there. The Premier seemed to think that that was a fine amount for us to get in British Columbia, but that still doesn't touch on the forest workers who were pre–May 1, 2007, many of them who may be running out of their income assistance and struggling to be able to manage now that that's running out, who certainly won't be around to deal with the forest industry that the minister keeps saying: "Years from now, it's going to come back." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask the Premier again: what kind of discussion did his staff, who were around that table, have about assistance that might be available to people pre–May 1, '07? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I should say that my staff, the Premier's office staff, were not directly involved in the discussions. It was done by the Associate Deputy Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am aware that there is a targeted initiative for older workers — it represents $9.7 million for British Columbia's older workers — that people could have taken advantage of and that may well have been part of the discussion that took place. There is a Canadian labour market development agreement that could easily have been part of the discussion that took place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I wasn't at the meetings, obviously. Mr. Straszak, from the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, was. That consultation took place in April. We have got the program up. What I have said to steelworkers' representatives and others is that we will see how this program works — if it's beneficial and what the drawdown is. If we find that it's been particularly effective, then we may well be able to do more. But we felt it was important to get these programs up and running as quickly as possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can tell you that in meeting with the mayor of Mackenzie a couple of weeks ago Friday, they were very pleased to hear that there would be representatives of Economic Development there. A similar response from the people of Fort St. James who are looking for ways that they can create the bridge for their families and their communities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We understand that they're on employment insurance. We understand that these are difficult times for forest families. We're trying to be constructive and helpful to those families in those communities as we move through this difficult time to what should be a very positive time for the forest industry in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: There's no question that the individuals and the workers and their families in those communities are extraordinary. They're extraordinary people who have weathered storms before, who have seen the ups and downs. They've just never seen a government that has taken a hands-off approach and says that there's nothing they can do. That's the difference this time around. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's incredibly frustrating for the individuals in that town who are doing their part, who are doing everything they can to be able to continue to show the extraordinary strength that those communities have shown, but instead, they're not receiving any support. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Given that the eligibility cuts off individuals based on the '07 date, given that the statistics that I talked about earlier leave 9,500 workers without support for tuition, I'd like to ask: doesn't the Premier see the importance of matching those federal dollars with provincial dollars to assist those workers and their families? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1455]
Hon. G. Campbell: I think there's no question that forest families and forest communities are going through a very difficult time. One of the initiatives that we launched a number of years ago was the forestry revitalization program, which provided $133 million of support for forest workers. In fact, I think that to date over $100 million has been taken down. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On top of that initiative, we've been trying to provide for a broader-based economic future for communities that have been particularly hard hit by the pine beetle. In doing that, we are working with both the Omineca pine beetle action and Cariboo action coalitions. We've provided additional resources for them to expand their economic base. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're investing in Geoscience B.C. to expand what we hope will be economic opportunities in mining in the province of British Columbia. We're launching major initiatives with regard to bioenergy and cellulosic energy and major initiatives with regard to replanting our forests in British Columbia — not just the forests that have been impacted by the pine beetle but also forests that had been directly impacted by the firestorms of 2004. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All of those initiatives are meant to create opportunity for those families to find employment, to find support for their families in their communities in the rural parts of British Columbia. I was pleased to see the federal resources to complement the initiatives that the province has already undertaken. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We will continue to work with industry groups, with labour, with community groups and with the UBCM to provide for the long-term future, not just for forest communities but for rural communities in British Columbia that may take advantage of a forest industry that's revitalized and driving into an even stronger future — as well as other resource industries in the province — so that rural communities in this province know that they have our support. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have been providing for a basic free adult education for people in the industry who felt that that was going to be appropriate. We provide books. We provide supplies. We provide for tuition if applicable. Again, that is being complemented by the federal resources. We welcome those resources. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We think the important thing for the province is to be working in concert with those communities and those families to try and ensure that we secure long-term opportunities for workers as well as for communities and for investors in British Columbia, because that's how you drive the long-term future of forestry in the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just to clarify, because I think the Premier — as we did earlier in this discussion — is mixing federal dollars with provincial dollars. I asked earlier in the discussion whether there were any provincial programs that individual workers could apply to. The Premier was talking about tuition, etc., and that's being matched by the federal dollars. My understanding is that those are federal dollars. They're not provincial dollars. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question again to the Premier would be: what provincial programs are available that individual workers can apply to — paid for by provincial dollars, not federal dollars? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sorry if I was confusing in my answer. I'm certainly not meaning to be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is a targeted initiative for older workers. It's $9.725 million. It's a cost-shared program with the federal government and the provincial government. That is on top of the $129 million. There is free basic adult education at post-secondary institutions, for people who are interested. That is funded by the provincial government. That is complemented by the tuition resources. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The mountain pine beetle action plan — we have a provincial share of that. We have also secured $200 million from the federal government for that action plan. If you took all of the resources that we're putting into that, it comes to roughly $640 million. If you take the resources the federal government has provided, which include the pine beetle and the community development trust, it's about 400-and-some-odd million dollars. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, what we're trying to do is use the taxpayers' resources, be they provincial or federal, to maximize the benefits for workers, for communities, for the long-term economy and for the long-term environmental sustainability of the industry. We feel that those have been important. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The regional development trusts — the Leader of the Opposition is, I'm sure, aware of them, although her party didn't support them. They were aimed at taking care of the pine beetle, providing for diversification in the face of a shifting forest industry that was going to take place in the Interior markets particularly. The northern development initiative and the southern development initiative trust were aimed at providing resources to rural communities to make sure that they could actually plan out themselves for their future and for the families that are living there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1500]
The coastal sustainability trust was put in place to try and help forest workers and forest communities on the coast. The employment and income assistance program from B.C. Employment is aimed at trying to provide opportunities for people and clients in communities and groups throughout British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're taking a whole series of actions and investments by taxpayers in the province of British Columbia, in the country, to try and provide for a stable bridge between what we all recognize is a very difficult time for these families and what we think will be a very bright future in forestry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I understand that $129 million is being managed, or a portion of it is being managed, by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Could the Premier please tell us how much of the $129 million is being managed by them and if there is an admin fee that comes off that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to find the specific response to the leader's question. I don't have that available immediately. However, the total administration costs for the $129 million is 6 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: So 6 percent of the $129 million. Is PricewaterhouseCoopers managing the entire $129 million? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: PricewaterhouseCoopers is managing $22 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just to get specific around PricewaterhouseCoopers's responsibilities. They're managing that portion of the dollars. Are they also managing the jobs programs? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The job opportunities program was budgeted at $26.25 million; $2 million dollars has been allocated to Mackenzie, and $2 million has already been allocated to Fort St. James. Economic Development and other ministries are working with those communities to see how those dollars can best be invested. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That leaves you with $22.25 million. The employment component of that, which can be up to $22.2 million but is not necessarily all of the $22.2 million, will be administered by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Communities, organizations, and forest and range licensees can obtain information about submitting their proposals to PricewaterhouseCoopers. They will examine those proposals, and they will make recommendations with regard to the disbursement of those funds. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1505]
It may be up to $22 million. There may be resources that are used for other communities similar to Mackenzie or Fort St. James. Today, less than 60 days after the money arrived, we can't say for certain how those dollars will all be allocated, but it's $26.25 million for the job opportunities program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Could the Premier please describe who set the terms of reference for applications for that $26.25 million? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Again, the terms of reference were set by the Ministry of Forests. PricewaterhouseCoopers has been managing the forestry revitalization trust, and they took on the responsibility for managing these resources as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Will the Premier commit to releasing those terms of reference so that people are aware of what the terms of reference are and how they were set out for communities to apply? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the terms of reference are readily available, but I'm glad to make those terms of reference available. Our goal here is not to not invest the dollars. Our goal is to invest the dollars as effectively as possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I certainly understand the Premier's comments, but we've also seen many examples of this government managing dollars — whether it's playgrounds or booster seats or other examples — where in fact the dollars weren't shared fairly with communities. So I think it's critical that communities have the ability to see the terms of reference, to see how it's decided which communities are going to be eligible for this funding and which communities aren't going to be eligible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would suggest that's fairly key. I would ask the Premier how long he thinks before those terms of reference will be released? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1510]
Hon. G. Campbell: We'll make those terms of reference…. We'll go to work in getting that out for the Leader of the Opposition and others. I mean, those are public terms of reference. PricewaterhouseCoopers does not make the decisions with regards to this. They manage the system and submit the information to government for the decision to be made, so it's not unclear. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the things that we have been trying to be alive to is the fact that some forest communities are more directly dependent on forest incomes than others. Mackenzie, for example, has direct forest employment of 45 percent. That's clearly a community that has had to meet significant challenges. That's why $2 million has been allocated. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Government still reserves the right to look at other communities that are in the same situation as Mackenzie or Fort St. James and allocate specific resources to those communities. That's why earlier I pointed out that PricewaterhouseCoopers's administration is for up to $22.5 million. It's not necessarily all of the $22.5 million. At any rate, the decisions will be made by government, not by PricewaterhouseCoopers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Then could the Premier please tell me what kind of terms of reference or filter government is going to use to determine which communities get the funding? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The Ministries of Forests, of Economic Development and of Community Services will take the information that's submitted by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Our primary concern has been for forest income dependency in communities, the quality of the surrounding economy, opportunities that are present for other workers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Obviously, they'll look at what the program looks like, whether it will be effective or not. Is it providing for that bridge for those forest families and for those communities? Are there long-term benefits as well as short-term benefits out of it? Those are some of the things that people will obviously be concerned about as they make their recommendations. The real questions are: how diversified are their economies, and how hard are they hit? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our goal here, as I mentioned earlier, is to provide support to forest workers in an effective way, to provide support for forest communities in an effective way and to hopefully build a bridge that gets us not just through this short-term challenge but that actually helps us get to an even better position in forestry, where it's more competitive, more sustainable and more stable for communities to depend upon in the future. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is not the only program, but there are other initiatives that government has undertaken to try and make sure not just that we build that bridge but that we build an even broader area of opportunity in the future for the industry. I think that all those things are going to be critical. Certainly, they're critical to the communities today that are looking at ways they can diversify, ways they can take advantage of that situation as it currently exists, as difficult as it is, to maximize the benefits to the community. Our goal is to try and assist those communities in meeting those objectives. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: My question, then, would be based on what the Premier has just shared with us — that the Forests Ministry, the Economic Development Ministry and the Community Services Ministry are all involved in making the decisions. My question would then be: why are the dollars contracted out? If government is making the decision in the end anyway, why isn't the government just making the decision? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: PricewaterhouseCoopers will do evaluation on behalf of government. They have been involved for the last number of years in the forest revitalization strategy. As I mentioned earlier, about $101 million of the $133 million fund has been taken down by forest communities and workers around the province. I think it's important for us to take advantage of that. We can take that experience. They will bring forward the reports, and government will make the decisions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1515]
C. James: Did the Premier ever have any discussions with those three ministries that he mentioned or with anyone in his own office about the fact that perhaps government could have done this and saved those dollars? Is the Premier concerned that every dollar that goes for administration is dollars that don't get directly to forest families? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I'm informed that in fact this was deliberately looked at to see what the best delivery model was. The feeling was that because of the experience that PricewaterhouseCoopers had, it would be able to provide faster, more cost-effective service to people. We looked at other options in government that we felt would not be as effective as this model. This will provide for the fastest access to these resources to communities, subject to government's decision. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I am certain there are many very capable people working within all three of those ministries who could have taken on this responsibility. I'm certain of it, living in a riding that has many civil servants working in it. I'm certain that there are people who are very capable of taking on this kind of responsibility, who could put together a very good program that could have ensured that most of the dollars were actually returned to forest families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask the Premier whether PricewaterhouseCoopers will be directly providing the job programs. Or will they be contracting, then, those dollars? In other words, will the money be going directly to families, to forest workers displaced, or will their dollars go to individuals contracted to provide programs, then following down to the individual forest workers? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: We can't be certain, but we anticipate that the majority of the applications are going to come directly from municipalities. They may come from licensees. PricewaterhouseCoopers will not be directly delivering these programs. They will be analyzing the proposals that are brought forward, and the ministries will be bringing forward recommendations for a decision on behalf of government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: A question, then, to the Premier. Is the Premier or any of the three ministries that are involved in making the decisions in the end around who gets the funding…? Will they be instructing PricewaterhouseCoopers to ensure that as many dollars as possible go directly to those grant programs rather than be contracted and subcontracted, as we often see when money is released to an individual organization? It's contracted and subcontracted. Therefore, it means that dollars go back into admin and less money to the communities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: PwC will not be allocating any of these resources. They will be making recommendations to government, having analyzed those. Our goal is to maximize the benefits to communities. I think that communities' goals are to maximize the benefits to their workers, to provide for long-term benefits to the community as well as short-term benefits to their workers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1520]
That's one of the things I think we'll find with the proposals that are brought in by different communities. We may have licensees that decide they have major initiatives they can undertake that will be direct proposals to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Those proposals will be analysed by PwC. They will be brought to the Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Forests and Range, and the Minister of Community Services. They will then be looked at with the view to maximizing the benefits for workers and communities in forest-dependent towns. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just to get into a little more around who the money is available for and who it isn't. The Premier used the term "diversified economy." The money would be going mainly to forest-dependent communities, not diversified economies. So I'd like to ask the Premier for his definition of a forest-dependent community and a diversified community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: First, I want to be clear that the purpose and the objectives with this are to try and create jobs in communities for forest workers who would like to stay in those communities, would like to have work in those communities and don't want to be forced out of those communities. We're asking the communities to come forward with recommendations on how they could secure that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What I mean by forest-dependent communities is that…. There are communities — for example, Mackenzie — where their forest income dependency is roughly 72 percent. That's different than a community whose forest income dependency might be 22 percent. That's not to say that those forest workers aren't impacted. We understand that forest workers are impacted. Whether they are living in the Lower Mainland or the far north, they're impacted. We understand that those changes are difficult for families to deal with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What we believe is that if we can find jobs for those workers in the communities that will bridge them through this difficult time so they do know they've got a job and some income in those communities that will help to support the communities, support the families and stabilize their long-term future in those communities, we think that's beneficial. That's what we're trying to secure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are some communities where there is a human resource shortage. So there are still communities that are looking for people who are willing to work, and some of these forest workers will take advantage of those opportunities. I can't predetermine where those forest workers or those families will go to take advantage of them. That is one of the things that happen in communities that have "more diversified economies." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That may be a community that benefits from energy opportunities. They might be benefiting from mining. They might be benefiting from other resource opportunities. I can't determine all those things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the reasons that we had PwC looking at these things is so that they can have a mirror that looks at the community and looks at the opportunities and says: "How do we invest those dollars most effectively for the families and for the communities?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I understand the Premier's description around forest-dependent communities. It's a percentage of the income, a percentage of the economic growth in that town. I understand the pressure that those communities are facing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1525]
But as we all know, there are many diversified economies where the jobs that are available for individuals are creating the kind of poverty numbers that we continue to see in British Columbia — the kind of numbers around child poverty and the kind of challenges around median income that just came out in the Statistics Canada report two weeks ago. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So my question would be: are the diversified economies that the Premier talks about going to be eligible to apply for this funding as well? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The intent is not to exclude anyone. The intent is to be sure that we're maximizing the benefits of the resources that are available to workers that are directly impacted and to communities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Kamloops may not be nearly as impacted as, for example, Mackenzie is, but they're welcome to make an application. PwC will review the application, will look at what the circumstances are there, will look at what the opportunities are for forest workers and will make that report available to the ministers that I mentioned earlier. They will reach their conclusion, and hopefully, they will do what is most cost-effective and most beneficial to forest families across the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Will those communities that don't receive funding for their programs have an ability to be able to get the criteria that was used to say that they don't get funding? Will they have access to that information, and will they have any kind of appeal process to government? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The answer to both questions is yes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: When might those be available? We've asked for the terms of reference now for those programs. Will the Premier ensure that the application process, the appeal process and the criteria that were used to make a decision, yes or no, for individual communities will be available to the public? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: My understanding is that it's the intention to have all of the information up with regard to criteria by this Friday. I think that it will be up on the Net this Friday. There will be communications with the Union of B.C. Municipalities so that they can let all of the forest-dependent communities know that it is available for them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The criteria will be there, and by the end of this week or early next week there will be requests for expressions of interest from any community that's interested in making the application. That expression of interest will…. They will know ahead of time. They will actually self-select whether they feel that they're a forest-dependent community that is actually eligible to make these applications or not. The communities will decide that for themselves, and they will see the criteria against which the applications will be judged. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1530]
C. James: To continue on in the programs and the availability for the programs, what kind of considerations or discussions took place in the Premier's office around the softwood lumber agreement and its impact on these programs? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Government had made it clear that no program would have a negative impact on the softwood lumber agreement. That is one of the criteria that we use in assessing the actions that we can take. We were clear with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister was clear with us that no program should have an impact on the softwood lumber agreement. We agree with that in view of the benefits that we all receive from the softwood lumber agreement, even though we are in a difficult time in forestry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Could the Premier, then, have a discussion or talk about the kinds of things that were eliminated for the ability to be covered under these short-term jobs? An example would be work on Crown land. Was that something that was considered as part of the impact on the softwood? Are there other areas that the Premier or the Forests Minister, or the three ministries that were talked about in looking at the criteria and terms of reference, eliminated because of the softwood agreement? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The protection of the softwood lumber agreement simply advised this: that we were not going to be taking over costs that would be normal business costs of a licensee as they carried out their activities. That would clearly be something that would be subject to challenge under softwood. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Then just a couple of specific examples. Would that include communities, for example, who had community forest licences? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: We will not be in a position of subsidizing any licensees as a result of this program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: We talked about the cut-off date for people applying for the tuition assistance being May 1, 2007. Does that cut-off date apply for communities as well? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned earlier, no community is ineligible. The criteria will be put on the Web late this week, this Friday, or early next week. Communities will self-select whether they think that they are appropriate for making application. Those applications will be reviewed by PwC. Following the review by PwC, the ministers will consider them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: There is a criterion there for the tuition, and it does have a deadline. So looking at communities like Midway, if I use Midway as an example, they faced shutdown and a crisis before May 1, 2007. Are the funds available to them to apply for transition funds? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Yes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1535]
C. James: I'd now like to ask the Premier some questions around his round table, the round table that the Premier created. My first question would be: how did the Premier come up with the idea for the round table? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: In 2007 it was clear, as the Canadian dollar rapidly rose and as we started to see the impacts of the sub-prime situation in the United States, that we were going to have to take some steps to look at the long term for forestry in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The critical component of that was to say: let's gather together people from industry, from labour, from communities who had an opportunity to think about the ten-year and the 20-year horizon for forestry in British Columbia, as difficult as that was. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We recognize that global markets are shifting dramatically. The competition has significantly changed and is going to continue to change in the years ahead. So the forest industry of the 1980s is clearly not going to return in the same form. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We believe that there are great opportunities in forestry in British Columbia. We still have some of the best forest-growing geography in the world. We have some of the most talented workers in the world, very productive. We believe that we can add additional productivity measures. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But we thought that rather than government saying this is the direction, specifically, that we think we should go in…. We felt it was important to ask other voices, for the Minister of Forests and other representatives of government to go around the province and hear directly from communities, directly from those impacted by the changes, who have, I think, some very good ideas about what the government can do and what British Columbians can do together to secure a long-term future for forestry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So we felt that a round table, which I announced in January with the Minister of Forests at the Truck Loggers Association, was a critical way of bringing public voices into the discussion around forestry. Everyone is invited to be part of the round table, to submit their ideas to the round table, about what they'd like forestry to look like in British Columbia in 2020 and 2030. We think that's critical to the long-term future of the industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I heard the Premier say that everyone is invited to put in their submissions. Well, they may be invited to put in their submissions, but they're not invited to the meetings. In fact, the meetings are closed door. They're invitation only. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So my question would be to the Premier. Was that part of the terms of reference that he set for the forest round table? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1540]
Hon. G. Campbell: The round table, as I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition knows, is headed up by the Minister of Forests. So far to date they have been in Campbell River and Port McNeill; Cranbrook, Kamloops, Prince George and Quesnel; Vernon, Terrace and Smithers; Burns Lake and Vanderhoof; Mackenzie and Fort St. John. They have additional meetings that are planned. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The round table includes members of local first nations who are directly impacted, licensees who are directly impacted, labour organizations who are directly impacted, local councils who are directly impacted. The round-table meetings in communities are intended to be working meetings, where the people who attend are asked to give their specific recommendations on what can happen. They are asked to do that without having to make a major presentation, but they are clearly presentations that are thoughtful about the future of their industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We think it's particularly important that local first nations be directly involved. The round table will report out to cabinet and will do that on a regular basis as it goes forward. I think the critical component of the round table is to create an environment where people can offer not just solutions but also their vision for forestry over the next ten to 20 years in the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When the minister has had the opportunity to complete the round-table presentations, he'll obviously make a presentation to government with regard to that. We'll have an opportunity to map out a course on the basis of the inputs that we've received. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would go back and reiterate that anyone is invited to submit their presentations to the round table through the Web. The round table is not exclusive in any way. I know that whether it's local community representatives, independent forest workers, woodlot owners or first nations leaders, they've all been invited to submit their recommendations and suggestions on how we can look to build an even brighter future in forestry in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: You know, I've heard a lot of terms from this Premier. I've said often that I'll give this Premier an A for coming up with empty slogans, whether it's heartlands, whether it's great goals. Now I've heard another one: closed-door meetings are actually called working meetings, according to this Premier. That's how he's described a closed-door meeting where it's invitation only and no one can come in. He says it's a working meeting. I guess that's new terminology from the Premier. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would like to ask: doesn't the Premier believe that the best way to hear the views of people who may be engaged in the industry is to listen to the people who are actually in the industry? Didn't the Premier ever consider holding open meetings so that everyone could share their good ideas? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: As far as I know, the people who are invited to the round table are all representatives of the industry. They're all actively involved in the industry. As I've said, anyone who wishes to submit their presentations through the Web are welcome to do so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Perhaps the Premier might be aware that some of those forest-dependent communities don't actually have access to the Web to be able to submit submissions. And I would certainly think that all those members of the round table might also believe that they could get some good ideas from people in the community and other people who work in the industry who aren't represented around the table. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask the Premier again: did he have any discussions with the Minister of Forests about the Premier's round table in holding open meetings in communities so that the public could attend? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1545]
Hon. G. Campbell: I understand the challenges of a complete consultation process. I think the opening up of all submissions to the Web…. All of those submissions are brought into the round table. Members are provided with those submissions. Frankly, to date, there have been compliments about the process as it's been set up. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The first nations are pleased with the fact that they are not necessarily required to come and present at a major public meeting. There are special meetings that are established with them so that we can deal not just with their issues with regard to forestry but with any other issues they feel are appropriate to deal with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The effort here is to reach out across the province. That will continue to be the effort that we make. You reach out through industry groups. You reach out through labour groups. You reach out through community groups. We've reached out through the Union of B.C. Municipalities and other groups to assure that they know that the round table is underway. This is an important issue for all of us to deal with, and we will continue to work with communities and those involved directly in forestry as we go through the round-table process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I think that the Premier needs to spend a little more time listening, because I could line up a number of people who would express concerns about this process, including first nations, and I don't know of very many first nations who would say to me that they didn't want to make a presentation at a large group. They're quite happy to do that. They're quite prepared to stand up and make a presentation, and in fact I know of many first nations communities who would actually like to be engaged and involved in the process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let's look for a moment at the terms of reference for the Premier's round table. If we take a look at that process, it says that it will provide input to and recommendations for a forest sector plan that looks forward five to ten years. Five to ten years is all well and good, and that, certainly, seems to be the attitude of government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask again: why is the round table's terms of reference set for five to ten years? What about now? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1550]
Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, again, as we've gone through the process…. When the round table was established, we also set up a regulatory review panel. The regulatory review panel has been looking at regulatory changes that can be made that will cut time, duplication, unnecessary cost, etc., to the industry. The participants of the round tables are invited to lay out specific challenges that may be immediate challenges as well as the long-term vision that they're looking for. To date I think that it's in the order of 25 to 30 regulations that have already been changed, and they're up on the Web. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are others that are being reviewed. I think there were literally dozens and dozens of recommendations that representatives of the industry, the public and the unions said they wanted to have time to review in detail. They are now in a 30-day process to review those, to see what additional improvements we can make in the short term. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As well as dealing with short-term challenges we are trying to establish a long-term vision which is shared by people in British Columbia who have a commitment and a belief in the long-term future of forestry in this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just so I'm clear. We know that the round table is to look at five to ten years forward. The Premier now says that this regulatory review committee is looking at the short term. Is that a committee that's going out to talk to the public about the short-term crisis and how we're going to deal with the 11,000-plus jobs that are lost — an internal committee? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The regulatory review was internal to government. It was an effort to look across ministries to see what impact different ministries may have on the forest industry, to see if there was duplication, if there were additional costs, unnecessary costs that were proposed. There were over 500 submissions that came from public officials across government, to say: "Here's how we think you could make a difference in the forest industry." The industry said: "Here's how we think you could make a difference in our industry." Our goal is to try to assure that there are no additional costs that are there because we haven't focused on our regulatory codes. They have come forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As I mentioned, I think there are about 25 to 30 regulations that have already been dealt with. There are a number of additional regulations that are now out and being reviewed. Again, we don't want to be acting without consultation with communities, with first nations and with others across the province, but we think that the initiative under the regulatory review will be helpful to the industry in the short term and, hopefully, for the long term as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In terms of the round table, when we say that we're hoping that we can have people focus on the long term, that doesn't mean that we're going to wait for the long term to act. It means that the actions we take now will be in alignment with our goals for the long term. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's no one suggesting that we're not focusing time, effort and energy on the forest industry right now — in fact, hundreds of millions of dollars on the forestry industry right now — to try and move through this difficult time into an even brighter future where we think forest industries will not just provide long-term, stabilized jobs for their workers but also an excellent and competitive environment for investors to come and invest in the forestry plant in the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1555]
C. James: I want to talk a little more about this regulatory review group internal to government, the Premier says — no public process. Well, we've seen what happens when this government implements policy without talking to the people or to the communities impacted. That's what we have — seven years and a crisis in the forest industry. That's exactly what we have. That's exactly what has happened. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hasn't this government learned anything from their mistakes of not talking to the public, of coming up with regulatory changes without talking to the public about the impact? The Premier said that they've already looked at some regulations to be changed. Who did they talk to, to make those changes? Were some of the licensees talked to? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sorry if I left the impression that there was no outside input into this. We actually invited people to submit suggestions for where there was duplication and for where there were challenges in the regulatory framework. Those were part of the over 500 suggestions and recommendations that we had in. We actually found that a number of those were duplicates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We also had recommendations coming from the public service. When we asked people to submit their ideas of what we could do, it was clear that the government might be in a position to accept some, to consider others and to reject still others. But that is a process that is taking place within government, within the ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So far there have been 27 recommendations that have been accepted, and regulatory changes have been made. All proposals will be posted. In fact, I mentioned earlier that prior to acting on the next stage of what may be possible we will be reviewing and consulting with industry and others with regard to the initiatives that are underway. The proposals will be posted on the Web so that people can see them. They will be readily available for people who want to consider them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When this was announced in January, the industry was invited to participate. Unions were invited to participate. Licensees were invited to participate. They submitted ideas. Our staff was requested to look at where they thought there could be improvements in the way we managed this system and managed the public interests so that there weren't unnecessary costs or unnecessary burdens on the industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Obviously, all of us are concerned about doing the best we can to be sure that the industry gets through this difficult time. That's why the regulatory review is in place. There are regular reports out. There was one at 90 days. There'll be another one at 180 days and another one at 270 days. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just to continue on with this process, the Premier states that in fact it was a public opportunity for people to be able to give input to the regulatory review. Was that advertised, for the public to be able to send submissions? Obviously, changes in regulations have huge impacts on everything from forest practices to environmental standards to safety issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask the Premier: did he ensure, through this regulatory review, that discussions were held with first nations? We've heard lots of concerns by first nations that the government comes to them for consultations after the fact, instead of ahead of time to talk to them about what they're considering. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask the Premier, in this open process: was the process advertised? Were environmental groups and NGOs invited to be able to make submissions? Were first nations included ahead of the process, not after the regulations were decided? Were all the issues of safety taken into account and those discussions held with labour as well? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1600]
Hon. G. Campbell: I announced this in January at the Truck Loggers Association annual meeting. I can tell you that people were anxious for us to get on with it. We have been getting on with it. We have informed industry associations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This was all done on the Web. There was not a major advertising program around this, but certainly people that were at the meeting — which included individuals, environmental groups, Truck Loggers Association, licensees, first nations — were all aware of the fact that they were invited to be part of this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There was discussion in the press with regard to it, and a press release was put out to communities across the province so that they knew there was an invitation. As I said, I don't think there's been a lack of response here. We have a response of over 500 suggestions and recommendations which we are now going through in terms of how we can manage it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's important to note that WorkSafe B.C. is part of the internal review group. Clearly, when I said that the government would be in a position to reject recommendations…. We're going to reject recommendations that in any way jeopardize worker safety. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the critical thing here, though, is that we have been told by the industry, by workers in the industry, by people in the industry that we had to get on with these tasks. We are getting on with these tasks. We hope there will be benefits from them. It was important that we maintain safety regardless, and that has been clear throughout. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just so I'm clear on the Premier's comments. People either had to be at the Truck Loggers Association to know that the Premier was putting this together or had to know to go on the Web and keep checking to see something new. No invitation, no information went out to groups and organizations to ask them for submissions to this regulatory review. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I come back again to first nations. What kinds of consultations were held with first nations ahead of any regulatory change? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned, not only did I make a speech at the truck loggers…. The minister made speeches. A press release went out to media outlets throughout the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
First nations had actually been involved in a year-long review with regard to their concerns and their opportunities in forestry. They are part of the forests round table. There are two representatives of first nations who I think were nominated by the leadership council. So first nations have been included throughout and will continue to be included in these deliberations and considerations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The public was informed through press releases, through speeches, through whatever media stories there may have been that they were invited to submit recommendations. Again, I think there were over 500 recommendations, so it's not like people weren't aware of the fact that this was taking place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The process in place was for there to be, once those recommendations came in, a review. You know, we had the opportunity to accept recommendations, to consider them or to reject them. As we consider them, there are industry groups, first nations and the round table itself that may well be included. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is a regulatory review panel that's critically important. In the short term it's going to act as expeditiously and directly as possible so whatever benefits there are to be found can accrue to the forest industry as quickly as possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1605]
C. James: I have to say that we've seen what happens with this government when they implement policies that they haven't gone out and talked to people about the impact on, and that's the crisis we see. I have to express my skepticism that this government is going to ensure that they've really talked to the public about the impact of any changes they're making. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just to go back to the terms of reference again for the round table, it says that the Minister of Forests and Range will report to cabinet quarterly on the progress of the working round table. Could I ask the Premier: will those reports be made public? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The minister makes regular reports and puts them on the Web with regard to the meetings that are taking place. The round table has been directed to submit a report to cabinet by December. That will be a cabinet document, and it will be treated as all other cabinet documents are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: There was a commitment of quarterly reports. I've taken a look at what's up on the Web. It's bullets. It's a summary of a couple of things that are talked about. It's not a report from the minister at all. It's not a report on what's going on at the round table. It's not a report on the thinking of the round table or the direction or the work that they're looking at or the pieces that they may be gathering in order to do their work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again to the Premier. The commitment was quarterly reports. Will those be made public? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I think the commitment was clearly that the minister would be reporting quarterly to cabinet. He will do that. He will also provide summary reports in a timely manner to the public. Those cabinet reports will be treated like cabinet documents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: So the answer is no, the public will not receive those reports. They will be cabinet, and they will be subject then to FOI and not released is what the Premier is saying. Again, for a process that is closed door, that's invitation only, that doesn't provide opportunities for the public to be engaged…. It doesn't sound to me like the Premier or government is really interested in receiving information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Although the terms of reference for the round table talk about five to ten years ahead of time, he also said that the round table could act now if there was something that instantly needed to be addressed or started work on. Certainly, one of the issues that I've heard from every community I've visited around the province in the area of forestry is tenure reform and the critical nature of tenure reform. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question then would be to the Premier. Has he looked at starting a process now to review tenure? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1610]
Hon. G. Campbell: I am informed by the Minister of Forests that tenure reform has often arisen at the round-table discussions that he's had around the province. I also am aware of the fact that there's probably no single more difficult public policy challenge that we face than tenure reform. The legal framework within which tenure reform can take place has dramatically changed from what it may have been even ten years ago in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is something that I think is extremely complex. It sounds simple to say it — tenure reform — but it's extremely complex. I am sure it is something that will be considered by the round table, but it will probably not be the first thing that they consider. It is something that will require a significant amount of work, and I'm informed by the Minister of Forests that that work is beginning to be done, but I don't want to hold out any suggestion that there is a simple answer with regard to tenure reform. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's something that has been wrestled with for some time. It's something that I think we see as an opportunity. But it will take a significant amount of work, consultation and, frankly, research to fully understand the impacts that any tenure reform system may have on the province's forest industry, on softwood lumber, on a number of other areas and on first nations opportunities that we have to be aware of as we pursue that kind of major policy initiative. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having heard from people around the province, the round table may well come back with some recommendations on how we can pursue that — the areas where we will get the maximum benefit for people in British Columbia, maximize the benefits of the forests for workers and for communities across the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't want to prejudge what their conclusions are. Frankly, I'm not in a position where I have heard the presentations at the round table. That's why we have a round-table report that will come out of this process. As I mentioned earlier, it's scheduled for December of 2008. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I heard mixed comments from the Premier, so I just want to clarify them. The Premier said that the round table is looking at a number of things; that yes, tenure reform has been a discussion at some of the round tables; that it's been an issue that has come up. We all agree that it's complex — part of the reason that I believe you have to get on with those discussions now and start having those discussions in a very public way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Premier did say that some work had begun around tenure reform. I'd like to ask the Premier: where has that work begun, and who is involved in those discussions? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1615]
Hon. G. Campbell: Each meeting the round table outlines on the Web the discussion plan that they've had, the presentations that they've received and the workplan that is flowing from that. It is important, I think, that the Ministry of Forests is examining some of these items. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For example, they are now reviewing different tenure options or tenure reform options — different tenures in different parts of the world and how they would be applicable in the province of British Columbia within the confines or the constraints of Canadian law and Canadian jurisprudence as well as public policy — and they will be bringing that information forward to the round table for their consideration. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: You know, when I take a look at this government's track record around understanding that our forests are public lands and belong to the communities and the people of British Columbia, they've got a terrible track record. In fact, we've seen it in a whole number of examples, whether private lands released or this government completely ignoring the link between resources and the community. I don't know anyone who would trust this government to take on tenure reform and to make sure the public had an opportunity for discussion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I express my concern to the Premier about the fact that if the Ministry of Forests is embarking on a review of tenure reform and some examples, as he points out, from this jurisdiction or other jurisdictions…. When is that discussion going to be a public process? When is the public going to be able to be engaged in what is a very important discussion for the resources that belong to the people of British Columbia? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Let me be clear. The public is invited to be engaged now if they would like to be engaged in recommendations on how we can improve the forest industry. Whether it's tenure reform or reforestation, whether it's looking at how we harvest or how we encourage investment in the province, that's up to the public to decide. They're invited to be making their submissions now. All of the submissions are provided to the round table. The round table has an opportunity to consider them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Certainly, should the round table come forward and suggest to cabinet that there is an opportunity for tenure reform that works within the legal constraints and public policy constraints of the province of British Columbia, it would be subject to significant public discussion or consultation before any final decisions are made. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As I mentioned earlier, there are extensive and in some ways conflicting public demands that are placed on forest tenures and our forests in the province. We recognize it as a public resource. We see it as a public resource that can provide economic, social and environmental strength to the future of the province of British Columbia. We actually encourage the public to be involved in the discussion of that — in all walks of life but particularly those who are directly involved with the forest industry in British Columbia and who have some specific recommendations that they might make. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, I don't apologize for a second for the Minister of Forests to go out and see what situations exist in other parts of the country or the world, to see if there are other tenures that actually encourage the kind of activities that we hope to take place in our forests. The whole purpose of the round table is to look at where we're trying to be in five and ten years. That means we have to take actions — today or next year or the year after that — that will help us get to those destinations, and I think that's a critical component of this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I'm not going to prejudge what the public submits. I won't prejudge what the round table recommends. I certainly won't prejudge what the delegations come forward with, but I am looking forward to the results of the round-table discussions. They've been asked to submit a report to cabinet by December. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1620]
C. James: I remain a skeptic when it comes to this Premier's and this government's direction around openness and transparency. It's the round table that the Premier says will be accepting material — the round table that is invitation only, that is closed-door, that doesn't report to the public, with a minister who only puts bullets on the website and doesn't make his reports open to the public. As I said, I remain a skeptic based on this government's track record on how they handle openness and transparency. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd just like to touch on one more forestry-related issue, which is related to a former staff person from the Premier's office, a former contractor in the Premier's office. That's Mr. Dobell. Just so I get it correct, one of Mr. Dobell's tasks when he was special adviser in the Premier's office was to prepare the coastal forest action plan. Is that correct? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1625]
Hon. G. Campbell: I apologize for the delay. I was just confirming. I knew Mr. Dobell had worked on the coastal forest action plan with the Ministry of Forests. There was an overlap while he was working on softwood. He was requested by the Minister of Forests and the forest industry to come and assist with the coast. We said yes, he could do that. He had a contract that was then renewed with the Ministry of Forests in 2006. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: And for that Mr. Dobell — just so I'm correct — presented a nine-page report as the end result of that work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned, Mr. Dobell worked with the Ministry of Forests on the coastal action plan. He submitted a group of recommendations to the Ministry of Forests, which were made public. He, I think, according to all accounts from the Ministry of Forests, did the job that they asked him to do. According to industry, he had done a good job of providing them with the sort of foundation they needed to move forward with the revitalization plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He did not submit that report to my office. It wasn't directly under the auspices of my office that he completed that work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: We know that Mr. Dobell was making $230,000 as a special adviser in the Premier's office. What was Mr. Dobell paid for the work that he was doing on the coastal forest? Were those resources that came from the Ministry of Forests, or did it come from the Premier's office? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[B. Lekstrom in the chair.] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The Premier's office wasn't paying for the work that Mr. Dobell was doing for the Ministry of Forests. The contract that the Leader of the Opposition refers to was an hourly rate, which was allowed to be charged up to that amount. It was not a set amount. It was based on an hourly rate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1630]
C. James: Those resources, then, came from the Ministry of Forests. Am I correct? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The hourly rate for the coast revitalization plan was paid for by the Ministry of Forests. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: So Mr. Dobell was making $230,000 in the Premier's office as a special adviser. He then made an hourly amount from the Ministry of Forests for a nine-page report and then brought in a report that…. If we take a look at the recommendations, in fact most of them haven't been looked at. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask the Premier about the recommendations specifically. Mr. Dobell…. One of the recommendations he included in that report was land use certainty. So my question to the Premier, then, is: how does the continued sale of private forest lands fit with that recommendation in the Dobell report? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I want to reiterate my answer so that the Leader of the Opposition hears it. There was a budgeted amount of $230,000 which Mr. Dobell could bill up to that amount using an hourly rate. He did not get a set contract of $230,000. Let's everyone understand that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As we canvassed in previous estimates, when Mr. Dobell was working for our office, which he has not in the last year, but when he was working for our office…. For example, in the year 2005-06 his total fees were $139,000. In the year 2006-07 his total fee was $102,000 — not $230,000 as the Leader of the Opposition tried to leave the impression. It was $102,000 that was billed at an hourly rate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When Mr. Dobell was working on the coastal revitalization plan, the bills were paid by Forests. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Thank you for the clarification from the Premier. Just to come back to the recommendations in the report and the taxpayer dollars that went out in this report from Mr. Dobell, I'd like to come back then again to ask the Premier…. One of the recommendations from Mr. Dobell was land use certainty. How does the continued sale of private forest lands manage to jibe with the recommendation that was in Mr. Dobell's report? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1635]
Hon. G. Campbell: I don't have all of the members of the Forests Ministry here to deal with the details of all of the plans that may have been discussed or may not have been discussed in Forests estimates. I'm sure that the opposition had a chance to canvass those things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can tell you that the coastal forest action plan was meant to enhance the shift to second-growth forests, which is something that people across the Island and the coast have been talking about. We wanted to encourage hardwood harvesting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are examining options to provide for land use certainty, as was recommended. I think those are critical components. We're examining ways that we can support a competitive pulp and paper sector and are helping to look for new technologies for that sector in the new world they live in. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All of those components of the action plan are aimed at having a long-term forest industry for the coast. We're expanding trade opportunities for coastal forest products. We're looking at different uses for coastal products, product development for coastal forest products. All of those things will remain part of what our initiatives are to try and improve the forest industry not just on the coast but in the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's important to note that I'm sure that the Minister of Forests and the ministry with all their officials are willing to deal with the details of what the coast forest action plan is. I don't have the resources here nor all the background that's necessary to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm glad to speak to the general direction that we're trying to take in British Columbia, which is to create a forest industry that's healthy, that's vital, that secures long-term jobs for workers, that supports their families, that stabilizes their communities and encourages investment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All of those things are critical. There is a very important transition that's taking place on the coast and in other parts of our province as we wrestle to create a competitive, sustainable, environmentally sound forest industry that provides the support for not just the families that are involved but the communities that are directly dependent on forestry for their long-term futures. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: I will just, as a friendly reminder, bring the relevance back to questioning regarding the Premier's estimates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I will. Since Mr. Dobell was a special adviser in the Premier's office and prepared the coastal forest report, I certainly would expect that the Premier would have taken some time to read that report and would have taken some time to look at the recommendations. So the questions for the Premier are both related to the Premier's Roundtable on Forestry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Premier himself has talked a great deal about the direction that he wants the forest industry to go in British Columbia, and there are some key recommendations in that report that I think are important for the Premier to let the public know his opinion of. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of those key areas is the sell-off of coastal forest lands, of private forest lands. I'd like to ask the Premier, given the most recent lawsuit by first nations, and there are other examples as well regarding the transfer of private lands…. Does the Premier believe that that action of his government fits with the recommendations in Mr. Dobell's report or fits with the new relationship, which again, is one of the Premier's top priorities? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: We've been at this for a few hours. I think the Leader of the Opposition knows what my answer is when she asks me questions that are directly related to a lawsuit. She might want to rephrase the question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1640]
C. James: I'd be happy to rephrase the question and ask the Premier how the sell-off of private forest lands fits with trying to maintain the forest land base and revitalize a forest industry in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I think that in terms of establishing a sense of confidence from not just investors and not just private land holders but from the public is for the public to know that there are processes in place and that those processes will be followed. So there is a process to consider private lands. There is a process that recognizes that there are many demands that are placed on those lands. That process is followed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister makes decisions, which the minister is obviously held to account for by the public. But the minister makes his decisions on the basis of detailed reports that come from staff. I do think it's important that people know, when processes are in place, that they are in place and that they will be exercised as they should be under the law. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I was actually asking the Premier's opinion about the sale of private forest lands. I wasn't asking for the Forests Minister's opinion. I was asking for the Premier personally, his opinion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It was Mr. Dobell, his adviser, who prepared this report. It was Mr. Dobell, his adviser, who talked about the importance of stability in the land base. I would ask the Premier how he feels, and has he been involved in the sign-off sales of private lands in British Columbia? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1645]
Hon. G. Campbell: I think that it's clear that there was a recommendation that we look to establish some certainty in land use planning on the coast of British Columbia. A number of initiatives have been undertaken to try and establish that certainty. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the things that's happened is the land use planning work that's been done between communities, first nations, industry and environmental groups to establish a detailed land use plan for the central coast and the north coast that is based, I think, on cooperation amongst all of those groups, to say that yes, we recognize there are additional demands. There are economic and environmental demands. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Obviously, those things are critically important, and I think we've established some significant progress in that regard, which establishes certainty for the communities and the workers and the first nations that are involved in those things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In establishing the new relationship, we've tried to establish a situation where first nations are included early in the process, not late in the process, where they actually have a stake in the process. In fact, we have a number of first nations agreements that have been made. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've signed treaties — for example, on Vancouver Island the Maa-nulth treaty is with five first nations on Vancouver Island — which create, I would suggest, some certainty both for those first nations and the communities that are directly impacted and the industries that may decide to work with them. So we have worked with first nations. We have worked with communities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Dobell's recommendation was, by definition, a broad-based recommendation about looking at options for creating certainty. I think we have got more certainty today than we had before. But I think it's also important for us to note that there are changes that take place in the land base, changes in demand. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We end up with a situation where a TFL may be excluded, and private lands may be excluded from a TFL. That was something anticipated when the TFL was established. It was anticipated in the 1950s. In fact, it was pointed out that any time…. The documents specifically say: "If at any time lands are found to be required for a higher economic use than raising forest crops, said lands may be withdrawn from the licence area on the consent of the licensor and request by the licensee." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, this is a detailed process. It involves many members of the ministry staff examining that, and the minister makes a decision. I think that process, the land use processes, the certainty that we've created, have helped establish that kind of certainty in the long term. I think the softwood lumber agreement helps establish some of that certainty for the industry, and we hope that that will continue on for some time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I find it extraordinary that the Premier would stand up and talk about certainty, that this province has created certainty and his government has created certainty on the land base. Let's take a look at what we've got when it comes to the forest industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have a first nations lawsuit against the government. We've had public rallies, many of them across this province, certainly here on the Island. We've seen petitions. We've seen the Auditor General, who is examining how the government is dealing with this issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1650]
You know, I find it extraordinary that the Premier would even raise certainty, because the government has done absolutely everything to not create certainty and to create crisis in the forest industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Once again, we saw the Premier and the Forest Minister paying for a report, a report that was ignored, whether it was raw log exports and a disincentive to raw log exports that was recommended by Mr. Dobell, or whether it was land certainty. The report was commissioned. The report was ignored by government, and they are continuing on with the direction on their forest policy. I think it's another sad example of this government's direction on forest policy and their lack of support for the communities and the resources that matter to these communities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With that, I'd like to move on to another topic and talk about the climate action secretariat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: At this time, Committee A will take a five minute recess and reconvene. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee recessed from 4:51 p.m. to 5:02 p.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[B. Lekstrom in the chair.] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd now like to move on to the climate action secretariat. We know that the Premier decided, after years of denying that climate change was a problem…. We can all go back over the track record of this Premier when it comes to denying that B.C. could have any impact — a direct quote from the Premier that B.C. could have no impact on climate change; it was too small a jurisdiction. He fought the Kyoto Accord on implementation. But last year we heard the Premier say that climate change was one of his priorities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, in dealing with that priority we saw the Premier actually set up what is a very complicated structure. I'd like to take a little bit of time to talk about that structure. As we know, the Premier created the climate change secretariat and decided to run it out of his office with most of the budget in the Ministry of Environment, a very unusual process to set up — to have the head of the climate change secretariat working out of the Premier's office but the responsibility sitting with the Ministry of Environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could I have the Premier please explain why he created this complicated bureaucratic system to deal with this issue? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I don't think it's that complicated, really. The climate action secretariat came out of the deputy ministers policy group in the Premier's office. The budget is in the Environment Ministry. That's where the budget should be. They do many things in alignment with the Environment Ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1705]
Most importantly, a number of the initiatives that they undertake cut across all levels, all areas of government. It's important, as we deal with this issue, that it be comprehensive, that it be cross-government. We have no trouble with the cabinet committee that is helping to guide the initiatives of the climate action secretariat in a cross-government way. The budget is appropriately with Environment, and the action secretariat does report to the cabinet committee. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Then my question to the Premier: if there is this mix, as we know, between the Premier's office and the Ministry of Environment, where does the ultimate accountability lie — with the Premier's office or with the Ministry of Environment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The responsibilities for climate change and the government's actions in climate change, again, are spread across government. For example, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has responsibility for B.C.'s new energy plan. The Minister of Transportation has the responsibility for the public transit initiatives that are being undertaken. Graham Whitmarsh is the head of the climate action secretariat, and he reports directly to the Deputy Minister to the Premier, as do other deputy ministers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: As we all know, sometimes problems occur in various structures within government. If there was a problem that occurred with the secretariat — for example, it went over budget or there are budget issues — where does that accountability lie? Does it sit with the Premier's office or the Ministry of Environment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: There is a separate vote in the Ministry of Environment. I believe there have been estimates for Environment already. There's a separate vote there. The budget is managed by the corporate staff of the Ministry of Environment, and the Ministry of Environment is accountable for that budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd like to take a little bit of time on this and ask the Premier to please talk about how decisions are made in the Premier's office, because the secretariat is in the Premier's office, and then how the budget allocations occur in the Ministry of Environment. How do they manage decisions being made in one place and budget allocations occurring in a completely different ministry? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The budget is managed by the financial officer for the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment is accountable for that budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The policy recommendations that may come forward to the Cabinet's Committee for Climate Action from the climate action secretariat can be originated in virtually any ministry of government. They come through the climate action secretariat for submission of their reports and their recommendations to the cabinet committee. The cabinet committee makes their decisions and gives their direction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just so I'm clear. The Ministry of Environment is accountable for the budget. It's their job to manage the budget, to make determinations around the budget, but the Premier gets to make decisions because Mr. Whitmarsh reports to the Deputy Minister to the Premier. The Premier actually gets to make the decisions about what gets spent? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1710]
Hon. G. Campbell: The climate action secretariat's administrative budget is managed by the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment is accountable for that. The climate action secretariat works across government and manages the flow of information to the Cabinet's Committee for Climate Action. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Cabinet's Committee for Climate Action receives the reports, receives their recommendations. It considers those reports. It has delegations that come, and they make presentations to the Cabinet's Committee on Climate Action. Then it makes recommendations to cabinet. The cabinet then makes decisions with regards to those. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In terms of the overall budget of government that may be applied to climate action, those are decisions that are made through the budget processes of government, which are first established in terms of the framework by the Minister of Finance, and then there may be, again, recommendations from the climate action committee. The budget is finalized by the Minister of Finance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I actually want to get down to the day-to-day spending of that budget — not how the budget is managed in the broad sense across government, but day-to-day decisions. I would presume that Mr. Whitmarsh has spending authority and the ability to be able to make decisions about spending. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd ask the Premier then: if Mr. Whitmarsh decided to spend some dollars, would he go to the Ministry of Environment to be able to get authority for spending out of his budget, or would he go to Ms. McDonald, who is the deputy that he reports to, or would he go to the Premier? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Again, the budget of the climate action secretariat is managed by the executive finance officer of the Environment Ministry — very similar to the kind of budget that they have with the environmental assessment office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1715]
There is a budget that is approved for the climate action secretariat, and Mr. Whitmarsh acts very similarly to other deputies in his position. He's responsible for making those decisions about how those resources are allocated. He may well come to the cabinet committee and ask for direction on specific programs or proposals before any decisions are made by him, but he's responsible for the day-to-day management of that budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Leader of the Official Opposition. Again, I'll go to the relevance of Vote 10, which is the Office of the Premier's estimates. We did on May 23 pass the climate action secretariat budget during the Ministry of Environment estimates debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Well, if I may….The climate action secretariat, as the Premier has said himself, reports to his deputy minister. His deputy minister is paid for through these budget estimates, which is the relevance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Your question was directly related to the climate action secretariat budget, which was passed on May 23 of this year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'll make sure I refer the questions directly to the Premier's office. Again, because the secretariat is in the Premier's office and because the head of the secretariat reports to the deputy to the Premier, it obviously relates directly to the Premier's budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask them again…. The Premier stated that the budget is held within the Ministry of Environment. My question would be to the Premier: why was the decision made, then, to have the head of the climate secretariat and the climate secretariat in the Premier's office and the budget held in a different ministry? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I'm a little surprised at the Leader of the Opposition. Every deputy minister of every ministry reports to the Deputy Minister to the Premier. She's the head of the public service. Mr. Whitmarsh is no different in that regard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As I mentioned in my answer earlier, the climate action secretariat was created out of the deputy ministers — meaning all the deputy ministers — policy secretariat. The budget is with the Environment Ministry. The executive financial officer of the Environment Ministry manages those resources, as you point out, that were approved during the estimates of the Ministry of Environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The climate action secretariat reports through to the climate action committee of the cabinet. The climate action committee makes recommendations to cabinet, and the cabinet makes decisions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I just want to get clarification again around the expenditures, because there seems to be, as I said, certainly for the public, some question about why the head of the climate secretariat is in the Premier's office and the budget is held in the Ministry of Environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When I look at the budget it appears, as hon. Chair has mentioned, that there is $111 million over three years for the climate change secretariat. My question then would be: if Mr. Whitmarsh is head of the climate change secretariat, reports to the deputy to the Premier and is based in the Premier's office, how is that $111 million over three years managed? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: As was mentioned earlier, the Environment Ministry's budget and the climate action secretariat's budget has been debated in this committee room, and it has been passed. The climate action secretariat makes recommendations to the climate action committee of cabinet. The cabinet committee makes recommendations to cabinet, and decisions are made by cabinet. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The actual budget for the climate action secretariat that was passed was already debated in estimates. It has been approved. Mr. Whitmarsh is the head of the climate action secretariat, and he's the one that's responsible for the day-to-day administration of those costs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1720]
C. James: Then I'd like to get into the specifics of exactly what happens with that budget, what happens around the climate change secretariat in the Premier's office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He mentioned that Mr. Whitmarsh is in charge of that coordination of the climate change secretariat. If we take a look at how that budget is managed, I'd like to just talk about a couple of specifics in that area. That would be around contracts. How much of those resources is Mr. Whitmarsh allocating towards outside contracts? Do those then get reported through the deputy to the Premier…? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Leader of the Opposition. Just again from the Chair, I believe the relevance to Vote 10 is not there. I believe what you're referring to…. You're certainly speaking of specifics. You've mentioned that more than once on the climate action secretariat budget, which was dealt with in these chambers and passed on May 23. So just as a cautionary note, I'd ask you to bring your questions back to Vote 10. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Thank you. I'd like to talk about the relationship, then, between Mr. Whitmarsh and the deputy to the Premier. As decisions are made on how allocations are spent in the climate change secretariat, does Mr. Whitmarsh go to the deputy to the Premier to discuss those allocations? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Whitmarsh acts as any other deputy minister in government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd just like to ask clarification, then, of the Premier and perhaps of yourself as Chair as well. My understanding is that the $111 million is separate and apart from the Ministry of Environment's budget that, in fact, was passed and that the $111 million is spent in different places across government, including policy development and legislation. So I'd just like the Premier to provide that clarification, if he could. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: There is $15 million a year which has been allocated to the climate action secretariat. There is a contingency amount which has been approved in the estimates of the Ministry of Finance under Vote 45 of $62 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Could the Premier then describe how that $15 million is allocated? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1725]
Hon. G. Campbell: In the allocation of the budget that was approved as part of the Ministry of Environment, there are 18 FTEs with an operating budget of $15.4 million. There is $8.83 million for climate action outreach, including communication initiatives. There is $4 million for policy coordination. Those are the 18 FTEs that I referred to. There is $2.625 million for climate action research, including studies and contracts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Just once again to the Leader of the Opposition before we go, what we're discussing is Vote 10, which is the Office of the Premier's estimates. What you're referring to is Vote 30 under the climate action secretariat budget, which was discussed on May 23 and passed under the Ministry of Environment budget estimates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd like to speak about some of the people working on contract to the climate change secretariat. I'd like to ask the Premier: is Mark Jaccard a contractor to the climate action secretariat? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[H. Bloy in the chair.] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I believe that this could have been canvassed during the Environment budget and should rightly have been canvassed at that time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can say that there's one specific contract with Mark Jaccard, and there is one specific contract with M.K. Jaccard and Associates Inc. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Could the Premier let us know the amounts of those contracts? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1730]
Hon. G. Campbell: Again, subject to your direction, but we're following a line of questioning that was appropriate in the Ministry of Environment's estimates, which have already been considered. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have told the Leader of the Opposition that there are two contracts. One is to Mark Jaccard, and I believe the other is to M.K. Jaccard and Associates. I understand that there was discussion in the Environment Ministry with regard to the budget, and I refer the leader back to the Environment estimates for the detailed responses to her questions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd be glad to introduce or to discuss with the Leader of the Opposition policy questions, but I'm really not in the position to carry out an estimates discussion in regards to the Ministry of Environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: If I could urge the Leader of the Opposition to tie her questions into Vote 10. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd just like to point out the problem and the challenge that creates for everyone, including the public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just to use an example to the Premier and ask him to please explain it. In fact, we put in requests through freedom of information for information about polling that was occurring through the climate change secretariat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We put in the request, as the Premier has identified — a budget held by the Ministry of Environment. We put in a request to the Ministry of Environment. The Ministry of Environment came back and said there was no record and in fact referred us to the Premier's office, where the secretariat is contained. That was their example and request to us. I'd like the Premier please to explain that discrepancy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I understand that Mr. Whitmarsh was made aware of the freedom-of-information request. The poll that was requested was up on a website, and it's publicly available to the opposition and to anyone else who cares to look at the poll. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd just like to read to the Premier the occurrence that happened, in fact. That polling was put on the website a couple of weeks after we put in our requests for polling information, and it said "no records." We then we got a letter back from the Premier's office to look on the climate action secretariat website, which in fact is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It comes back to the confusion that the Premier has created by trying to put the head of the secretariat and the secretariat in his office and the budget somewhere else. The accountability lies with the Premier's office, because he said clearly that the head of the secretariat reports to the deputy to the Premier, who is based in his office. Therefore, the responsibility is directly in his office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask the Premier what kind of role his office has directly in the polling. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Let me reiterate again for the Leader of the Opposition that Mr. Whitmarsh reports to the Deputy Minister of the Premier, just as other deputy ministers across government report to the Deputy Minister of the Premier. He is the head of the climate action secretariat. The budget is in Environment. The information that the Leader of the Opposition requested was put on the website, and it's fully available for the public, for their own information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Leader of the Opposition, if I could further remind you to direct your questions and tie them into the budget estimates for the Office of the Premier and Vote 10. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Thank you, hon. Chair. This relates to someone who reports to the deputy in the Premier's office, which is related to the vote and the Premier's budget. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1735]
My question is, again, to the Premier. Is it not different to have someone who is based in the Premier's office…? I understand that the deputies report to the Deputy Minister to the Premier. But I would suggest to the Premier and I would ask the Premier: does he see it as a different line of accountability when you have the secretariat based in the Premier's office? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I explained earlier that Mr. Whitmarsh, as with other deputy ministers, reports to the Deputy Minister to the Premier. The budget allocation is managed out of the Ministry of Environment and has been approved on May 23, as was mentioned by the previous Chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think the important thing is that the climate action initiatives of this government are across government. We are trying to assure that all ministries are coordinated in their efforts to reduce the impacts of greenhouse gases, to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt with and to mitigate the challenges that are created by climate change. It is a cross-government initiative, and I think that this is appropriate and in line with sensible practice. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd like to come back to the polling information. It was the Office of the Premier that told us to look at the website, based on the climate secretariat putting those results up. So I would like to ask: did the deputy to the Premier or the Premier himself get a look at those polling results before they were posted on the website? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The poll results were on the way to the cabinet committee. As is always the case, anything subject to section 12 is reviewed by my deputy. The deputy gave the direction that they should be put on the website. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Could the Premier please explain, then, why the Ministry of Environment stated they had no documents or records at all related to the poll? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: No, I can't explain that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Leader of the Opposition, could I caution you that we're here to discuss the budget estimates for the Office of the Premier. Maybe you'd like to change your direction of question so that we can do this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: The head of the climate change secretariat is based in the Premier's office and reports to the deputy minister. I think the Premier has just pointed out exactly the challenge there is and the difficulty and the problem that the Premier himself has created by having the budget based in one place and decisions being made somewhere else. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Premier himself talked about the $62 million in contingency that was there. So my question would be: who makes the decisions on the spending of that? Is it Mr. Whitmarsh, who reports to the Deputy Minister to the Premier? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Submissions are received by Treasury Board. Treasury Board reviews those submissions, and those recommendations from Treasury Board go to cabinet. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Are those decisions vetted through the cabinet committee? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I don't want to say that this is always the case, but it would not be unusual for the climate action secretariat to first come to the climate action committee of cabinet for consideration. If there's approval from the climate action committee of cabinet, that would go to Treasury Board for their consideration and recommendation to cabinet. The final decision would in all cases be made by cabinet. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1740]
C. James: Can the Premier please confirm whether the climate change secretariat is subject to freedom of information? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, the climate action secretariat is subject to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Could the Premier please talk a little bit about how the climate change team is going to report to the public and engage the public in discussions around this critical issue? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The public initiatives of the climate action secretariat and the government with regard to climate change take a number of forms. First, we have invited selected members of the public to come and make presentations to the cabinet committee. The climate action secretariat has met with, including ministries, over 400 different organizations across the province. We have had sectoral meetings which were attended by either ministers or the climate action secretariat or a combination of the two. We have had public meetings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Obviously, we have a number of public discussions that have taken place. That will be ongoing. In the future there will be a major public initiative to inform people with regard to the opportunities they have for significant savings with regard to activities that they may take to benefit themselves and their own budgets. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Every ministry in government has been discussing the climate action initiatives across government. The Ministry of Education has been talking about it with school boards. We have had discussions with our universities and our hospital authorities about it. We've had discussions with regard to economic development and the Business Council about it. Health has been meeting with health authorities about it, as I've mentioned. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This goes across all areas of government and will include all communities and the people of British Columbia over the years ahead. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: We have a forest round table, which we canvassed just before this issue, where it's invitation-only. We now have a climate action secretariat that is selected members of the public, invitation and selected to talk to the government — again, a typical pattern that we see from this government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask the Premier. He mentioned a number here that I know he has used before — the fact that 175 groups have made submissions to cabinet. The Premier made a commitment that he was going to release those names of groups and submissions. We're still waiting. The public is still waiting. The press is still waiting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I now hear from the Premier that he has met with 400 organizations, or that 400 organizations have been included. Will the Premier release the names of all of those organizations and groups? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1745]
Hon. G. Campbell: Just for the sake of clarity, the climate action secretariat has met with almost 400 separate organizations, groups and individuals in terms of carrying out their responsibilities. When the climate action secretariat or any member of the climate action secretariat goes and makes a presentation, they invite people to make a presentation to submit, to inform the climate action secretariat of the issues that they feel are critical for government's consideration. They have taken every request for a meeting to date that I am aware of or that Mr. Whitmarsh is aware of. That's one group, which is the climate action secretariat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Cabinet's Committee for Climate Action has had a number of presentations made to it. A commitment was made by myself that that list of presenters to the cabinet committee would be appended to the climate action plan. I expect the climate action plan to be ready and submitted to the public within weeks. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I also have said that it doesn't make sense to have a climate action plan that's based on what may happen in the Legislature. There are a number of bills that are before the Legislature for consideration. If those bills are passed, the determination of what takes place in the climate action plan will be clearly reflected in that climate action plan. The public will have a comprehensive review of all the actions that government is taking to reduce our greenhouse gases by up to 33 percent by 2020, in the first phase. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: On an issue that the Premier says is one of his top priorities and on an issue that is of great importance to all British Columbians, I find it…. As I said, it continues to astound me that this is a government that does things without engaging the public, without letting people know who's involved, by invitation only, by "selected members of the public" — as the Premier has used, in his own words — rather than engaging the public over the last year, as the Premier had the opportunity to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to ask the Premier: has the climate change secretariat had any open public meetings — not invitation-only and not only people that the Premier wants at the table but public meetings? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: It's not unusual for the climate action secretariat to make presentations to open meetings. In fact, many of the meetings that they're invited to are open meetings. I've made presentations at open meetings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's important to note that there must be some public input here. We've got over 120 municipalities that have signed onto the climate action charter in terms of themselves and their communities across the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Candidly, I think, we have taken a number of significant steps in British Columbia. We hope that we'll be able to take more as we go through this legislative session, which will put us in a position to start to meet the targets which have been set for 2020. I think there are important initiatives that are underway. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We welcome the public's input, and we welcome their encouragement, as we've seen over the last year. We will continue to work with all members of the public, with members of the community. The climate action team has been established to look at economically viable ways of building on the work that's been done to date. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The province has had recognition from other jurisdictions about the initiatives that we're undertaking. We don't pretend that it's in any way definitive. We don't pretend that we have got all the answers. We've been working on creating those answers and those solutions with members of the public. Members of our academic institutions, researchers, scientists, community groups, environmentalists and business sectors — all have been involved in trying to help develop a climate action plan that would help British Columbia as a jurisdiction not just to become more competitive and more productive but to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1750]
C. James: I guess that's a no from the Premier — that they haven't held public meetings. Invitations to Mr. Whitmarsh, Mr. Whitmarsh follows through on, and invitations to the Premier, he follows through on, but the secretariat hasn't in fact held public meetings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When I talk to the public around British Columbia, they want to be engaged in this issue. They want to have an opportunity to talk about what they like and don't like about the direction the government is taking. They want to do their part for climate change. They want to make a difference. They want to be involved in the discussions, and they have not been involved in the discussions. The Premier made a decision about what he was going to do and what direction he was going to go and put that direction out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to look at some of the specifics around the climate action secretariat. One of the commitments that has been made is a public engagement plan to be done. We left the '07 fiscal year. There was a promise that that was going to be done. We've seen no announcement, so I'd like to ask the Premier: what's the progress of that public engagement plan? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The public outreach program and engagement program involves a number of specific actions that we intend to take. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have already hosted the youth climate leadership alliance meeting, where we encouraged youth from across British Columbia to join us in undertaking initiatives. We will be establishing a citizens conservation council for representation across the province. We will be establishing the LiveSmart B.C. branding program, which creates not only a Web presence but also the collateral material to encourage individuals to participate as they see fit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We will continue working with initiatives similar to the adaptation conference that we hosted here in British Columbia. We will continue to do sectoral meetings as we go through the next number of months and through the next two to three years. We will continue to work with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities to meet the challenges of reducing urban sprawl, improving the transportation system, etc. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All of that will be part of the outreach and engagement program that will be carried out by government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1755]
C. James: The commitment was to put together in the '07-08 year a public engagement plan. The Premier has mentioned a lot of activities taking place, but I'd like to ask again: what happened to the public engagement plan that was promised by the secretariat to be ready for '07-08? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: We have been engaging with the public throughout. I just mentioned a number of areas where we already met with the public. We will be continuing to meet with the public on that. There has been public engagement with almost 400 separate groups in the public — representatives of the public, individuals from the public, etc. So the engagement plan has been, frankly, growing over the last year. The citizens conservation council will be put in place this year. The youth climate leadership alliance has been established. The first meeting has been had. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have a network of young people from across the province of British Columbia working to develop new ways of reaching out to the younger people in British Columbia who are very concerned about their future. We're being guided by them in terms of those things. The work is being done, and I'm sure that the climate action secretariat will continue to build on that work of the past year as we go into the years ahead. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Could the Premier please tell me who is responsible for this public engagement plan? Is it Mr. Whitmarsh? Is it the Premier himself? Is it the Ministry of Environment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: As the head public servant responsible, Mr. Whitmarsh is responsible for the public service activities. The Minister of Environment has the service plan, and he will be responsible for ensuring that that takes place over the next couple of years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just so I'm clear again, then. The Ministry of Environment is ultimately responsible for the public engagement plan? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: As I mentioned on a number of occasions this afternoon, Mr. Whitmarsh will make recommendations. The Minister of Environment will be the accountable government officer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: As we know, in March of this year Louise Comeau was the climate change secretariat's public outreach and engagement director. She was fired. Could the Premier please explain why she was let go? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: We don't discuss personnel matters. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: We know and it was made public that Miss Comeau was given a four-month severance package. Could the Premier please tell us how much that package was worth? I'm certain that with Mr. Whitmarsh there, the information, I'm sure, is readily available. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1800]
Hon. G. Campbell: Unfortunately, I have not been able to retrieve the exact figure, but it will be in Public Accounts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Just another question to the Premier then. Have there been any other departures from the climate change secretariat? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: As I understand it, there has been a small degree of turnover, as is typical of any organization. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: Could the Premier provide us with that small number? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: To the best of our recollection, three. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'd now like to talk about the Premier's commitment to make the public service carbon-neutral by 2010. Could the Premier please tell me who is included as part of the public service? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: The core areas of government are covered in our commitment to make British Columbia's government carbon-neutral by 2010. Also hospital authorities, Crown corporations, school boards, universities, colleges and institutes that are under the auspices of the Crown. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1805]
C. James: I've included school boards, municipalities, hospital boards and, as the Premier said, Crown corporations. My understanding is that the Premier is looking at carbon neutrality happening by developing a carbon trust. There's a cost to that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is: is the Premier in discussions about how school boards or hospital authorities, for example, will cover off these additional costs? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Again, for the sake of clarity, let me be clear that municipalities are not included in the core areas of government. In the core area of government there are hospital authorities, Crown corporations, school boards, universities, colleges, and there are groups like BCIT — not municipalities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Many municipalities have voluntarily decided to sign the climate action charter in their municipality. That does not require them, but they have committed to trying, to become carbon-neutral by 2012. I believe the number is something in the order of 125, or a number similar to that, municipalities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have just embarked on a major initiative, for example, with school boards, where representatives of the climate action secretariat go out. They provide those school boards with an understanding of how they measure their carbon, how they can reduce their carbon and the steps that they can take to make themselves more carbon-neutral. We're not in a position where we can say what will take place at this point until those discussions are complete. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I can say that virtually every institution that I've talked about has embraced this idea, has engaged the idea of reducing government's greenhouse gas emissions. I'm encouraged by the kind of response that we've had from representatives of the core area of government and others who have been involved in looking at how they can reduce their greenhouse gases in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: I'll come back again, then, to the costs. I don't have any dispute that people want to be engaged in being carbon-neutral. They want to be engaged in reducing their footprint. Everyone wants to do their part. But if I take a look at just a couple of the examples that the Premier has outlined, whether it's school boards or universities or colleges — who are dealing with strapped budgets, who are dealing with challenges currently — we know there will be a cost to this in addition to the costs that they're already having to put out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question would be to the Premier. Is the climate change secretariat looking at those additional costs and calculating them? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1810]
Hon. G. Campbell: The first step of becoming carbon-neutral is to appropriately measure your carbon footprint. That's the first stage that we're in right now. As I mentioned there is a team from climate action that is going out and dealing with that directly. I can tell you that in the communities of Vancouver and Victoria the education programs that they're providing are oversubscribed. We expect we're going to see more of that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Actually, I don't concur with the Leader of the Opposition that there will necessarily be additional costs. There may be some upfront costs, but those costs will be offset by long-term operational savings. In fact, we think that there are significant long-term operational savings in terms of how we design our buildings and how we respond to the challenges of climate change so that we reduce our greenhouse gases. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that the first objective we all have is to have significant reduction in the impact we have in terms of greenhouse gases. The engagement that we've seen from people to date has been significant. If, in fact, they are not able to reduce their greenhouse gases to a carbon-neutral position by 2010, they will be in a position where they can buy offsets in 2011 to cover the cost of that. At this point we can't say what the costs will be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, I am not one of the people that buys into the argument that says we can't change without significant costs. I think that there are substantial savings, substantial long-term operational savings, for our hospitals, for our school boards. There is ample evidence that our schools are more effective when they're designed with this in mind. Our hospitals are more effective when they're designed with these environmental impacts in mind. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So part of this is to share information, to build understanding, to find explicit and specific actions that can be taken that will reduce greenhouse gases and to do this in partnership with the agencies of government and, frankly, agencies outside of government who are looking to reduce their greenhouse gas load. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
C. James: To the Premier, then: he's admitted that there may be costs to all of those bodies: school boards, universities, colleges. There may be additional costs. Is the Premier looking at any kind of budgets to assist those bodies in either the costs — remembering that this is only 2010, that the work has to be done to address carbon neutrality — or with any additional supports for helping those bodies move to carbon neutrality? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have many old schools in school districts that will be difficult and will need additional resources to retrofit. Is the Premier expecting that to come out of existing budgets, or is the Premier looking at putting aside some additional resources to support those public bodies? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Again, I think it's important to note that what we are doing is building a partnership with members of the public sector in providing them with information about how to measure their greenhouse gas emissions, etc. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're working with B.C. Hydro right now on a conservation agreement that we think will be beneficial to all public agencies. We have seen that be beneficial to the core areas of government. We think that it can be beneficial to areas like hospital boards, school boards, etc. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we have to look at restoration of our facilities with different eyes in view of the objectives that we've set for ourselves in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I think that it's critical that we do that together. The engagement that we intend to pursue is one which includes individuals, citizens, municipalities and groups in the core area of government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1815]
Again, I can tell you from the experience I've had in dealing with parent advisory councils and school boards, specifically, and hospital authorities. I think it's really important for us to note that we are in a position where we are going to be successful with this. We are going to have all of the public agencies working with regard to this. I think there are savings to be found in the public sector that can help fund this. As well, there will be additional opportunities for resources to help meet those needs in the future. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Hon. Premier, I'm going to call the vote. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, before you call the vote, I would like to make one correction to my comments yesterday. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I noted that the Deputy Ministers Council had directed a cross-government memo be sent out to remind contractors, to acknowledge them, of their potential responsibilities under the Lobbyists Registration Act. That action was directed, but I was informed later yesterday afternoon by the Ministry of Finance that the memo is being finalized subject to legal counsel and has not yet been sent out as I had stated yesterday. I had understood that it had been distributed. It will be sent out in the near future. I can confirm that once it is sent out, the government will be providing a copy to the opposition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I should note further that as I said yesterday, this was meant as a reminder to heighten potential contractors' awareness with regard to this. The current contractual requirement and general service agreement already indicates that contractors must abide by all applicable laws. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Vote 10 — Office of the Premier, $14,102,000 — approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. G. Campbell: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of the Office of the Premier and ask leave to sit again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Committee A now stands adjourned. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee rose at 6:17 p.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services
publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright (c) 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada