2009 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 38, Number 6

[ Page 13827 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Christensen: The Ministry of Children and Family Development's student employment program provides employment opportunities for students to gain work experience in various careers within the ministry. Over 80 students have participated in this program over the past two years in all parts of British Columbia.

[1335]

Today we're joined by three current participants in the program. They are Stephanie Patterson, Lindsay Fichaud and Naomi North. Joining them is Michelle Perren, who's a strategic human resource planner and administrator of the program. I hope the House will join me in welcoming these students and their escort here today.

C. James: I know it's unusual to recognize members during introductions, but on all our behalf, I'd like to welcome the member for New Westminster back to the House. [Applause.]

C. Richmond: I have a special introduction today. My wife Pat is in the gallery to observe the proceedings in the House, probably for the last time. Yesterday was her birthday, so I spared no expense and took her to dinner at Government House. I know that I speak for all members when I say it was a delightful evening.

Thank you, Mr. Lieutenant-Governor. It was wonderful.

Pat has supported me in my various endeavours for many, many years. In fact, on the 28th day of this month, it will be 51 years. Will the House please make her welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased today to introduce somebody who is a good friend of many of us on this side of the House. Gordie Larkin is here with us today. Gordie has recently retired after many, many years working for the Canadian Labour Congress and working for working people across this country. I'd ask that the House make Gordie welcome.

Tributes

JIM WAKELY

R. Hawes: On February 13, Jim Wakely, the inspector in charge of the Maple Ridge detachment, passed away from colorectal cancer. Last July he took leave to deal with his illness and succumbed to it this month.

Jim was a great detachment commander, particularly working in the area of drug addiction and homelessness. He was a tireless promoter of things in Maple Ridge and well respected within the force. He served 34 years with the RCMP.

Could the House please — through you, Mr. Speaker — send something on our behalf to his family and three children to remember his passing.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Joining us today in the House is a longtime friend of mine, Mr. Bill Vanderland, the president of EnerGreen Power. Will the House please make him feel welcome.

G. Coons: It's always an honour to welcome students into the House. Today we have 80 students and teachers from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School to watch the proceedings. Please make them welcome.

Hon. J. McIntyre: This morning I got a very excited call from Paul Lalli, a councillor in Squamish who wanted to announce and make sure that everybody in the Legislature knew that his daughters Justine and Jaya were just blessed with a baby brother named Roshan Singh Lalli. I just wanted the House to congratulate him.

Hon. I. Black: Perhaps it was the excitement of the moment and the enjoyment I've had in the last two days having my son here, but I forgot to mention his name when I introduced him in here yesterday. He's with us again today. Thomas is here.

Welcome, my son. It's great having you with us.

Statements (Standing Order 25b)

ITALIAN CANADIAN CLUB IN TRAIL

K. Conroy: Last Saturday, February 14, my husband Ed and I had the pleasure of attending the 75th anniversary celebration of the Italo-Canadese club. This society was formed in 1934 to help Italian immigrants who had moved to Trail to make the transition to a new world.

[1340]

As well as friendship and social opportunities, the Italo-Canadese also provided financial aid whenever a member faced a hardship like illness or death in the family. There were no medical benefits or government supports in those days, so if you got sick or unemployed, the society was there for you.

The objective today is to continue their heritage and promote Italian culture by hosting their fabulous Italian dinners and baking and continuing to use the Italian language at meetings. The members also fundraise to
[ Page 13828 ]
maintain their hall but also contribute to many worthwhile projects and groups in the area.

As part of the celebration on Saturday night, longtime member Bruna Benedad was also recognized. Bruna came to Trail in 1929 as a young girl and couldn't speak any English. Her father gave her incentive to learn the language with ten cents for every new word she learned. She said she learned quickly.

Bruna, at 93 years, is the oldest original member and was honoured for her many years of service. She remembers in those early years the dinners they prepared taking days, as cooking chicken meant having to buy and pluck them before you could even start to prepare them.

Bruna told me stories of people in the room who are now in their 50s and 60s, remembering their parents and the children themselves and some of the mischief they got up to as young kids. I watched a gentleman in his 60s squirm as she reminisced about his childhood antics in church and the big bag of cookies his mother always brought to keep him quiet.

Trail is well known for its Italian heritage and incredible food, but I think it's the people who make it special — people like Bruna and the club president, Tony Gioretti, who continue to give back to a community and a culture they love. For that, I thank them.

ADVOCACY FOR DISABLED PERSONS

C. Richmond: Today it's my pleasure to congratulate two groups of people who work diligently on behalf of all of us for those with disabilities. They are the Measuring Up committees and the 10 by 10 Challenge teams.

Measuring Up is being headed by 2010 Legacies Now and focuses on accessibility for persons with disabilities. It is a necessary step to inclusion. Without accessibility, there can be no inclusion. Through many dedicated committees throughout the province, Measuring Up has done incredible work to make sure that B.C. becomes the most accessible jurisdiction anywhere.

Now for the inclusion part of the equation. A couple of years ago at UBCM we challenged communities to accept our 10 by 10 challenge to increase the number of disabled people hired by 10 percent by 2010. The challenge was taken up enthusiastically by many communities, both large and small. Each community was told what their number was to reach the 10 percent mark. Several have reached and exceeded their target number and have placed over 200 disabled people in jobs.

There are over 300,000 people with disabilities out there who are qualified, ready and willing to work. All we have to do is reach out to them. As one disabled person put it to me: "We don't want you to see a disabled person when you look at us. We want you to see a person. We want to be contributing members of society. We want to work, and we want to pay taxes. It's not too late to get on board and hire the disabled. You will have the most loyal, hard-working employees you could ever imagine."

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

R. Chouhan: February is Black History Month. People all over are celebrating the history of African Americans. Although the blacks have been in America for centuries, it was not until the 20th century that they started getting some recognition in the history books.

For hundreds of years the blacks in America were nothing but mere slaves. Until the 20th century their sacrifices and achievements were largely ignored. They faced every imaginable barrier to get a good education.

Dr. Carter Woodson was the second African American to earn a Harvard doctorate, in 1912. Dr. Woodson was the founder of the study of Negro life and history. In 1926 he promoted Negro History Week, during the second week of February, to celebrate the birthdays of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. This continued until 1960, when it became Black History Month.

Now that Barack Obama has become the President of the United States of America, some people are asking that the observance of Black History Month should be stopped. No doubt, some people are unhappy to see a black President in the White House. They will go to any length to find an excuse to deny the black people their rights. In 1963 Martin Luther King said: "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

[1345]

Black History Month is still relevant because there is still a need to educate ourselves on the outstanding intellectual and artistic contributions that African Americans have made. Observing Black History Month is an important tool to make people aware of our past and to build a better future for all.

As Martin Luther King said on August 28, 1963: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident — that all men and women are created equally.'"

GUIDE-SCOUT WEEK

H. Bloy: Hon. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to once again wear my scout uniform into the House.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Scout-Guide Week, which is now taking place from February 15 to 22. Scouting began in 1907, when Lord Robert Baden-Powell took a group of youth to a camp in the wilderness. In 1910 B-P, as he is known in scouting and guiding, wrote to the Governor General of Canada of the day asking them to start a scouting group in Canada. Since that time, every Governor General has been Chief
[ Page 13829 ]
Scout of Canada. The current Governor General and chief scout is Her Excellency Michaëlle Jean.

This week is a celebration for Scouts Canada and Girl Guides of Canada, when both organizations come together in the spirit of friendship to honour their shared heritage. It is also an opportunity for the public to recognize the limitless potential of Canadian youth and the work that scouting-guiding does to help build a better world for our nation's future leaders. Scouting-guiding instils the values of leadership, honour and teamwork through the many exciting outdoor programs it provides to over 75,000 boys and girls and youth.

These programs are developed and maintained by over 6,000 energetic and dedicated volunteers in British Columbia who selflessly give of their time and deserve the praise and our thanks for the work that they do. My wife Anita and I are still involved in scouting and guiding, and we just appreciate the opportunity that we have to work with youth. I'd ask all members of this House to join me in wishing Scouts Canada and Girl Guides of Canada continued success.

Soroptimist International
of the tri-cities

D. Thorne: Today I am pleased to rise to pay tribute to the Soroptimist International of the Tri-Cities, a volunteer service club that makes a difference for women and girls. Soroptimists are business owners, nurses, realtors, instructors, office workers, and more. They are women who volunteer their time and resources to improve the status and rights of females throughout the world. There are over 95,000 soroptimists in 120 countries.

The Tri-Cities chapter carries out a busy schedule of activities. A special emphasis is on the monthly social and educational evenings for homeless and other women in need. Soroptimist members also provide financial help to women who wish to return to school, and the club funds scholarships and bursaries for teen girls who volunteer in their communities.

As well, Tri-Cities soroptimists have made more than 1,700 comfort cushions for women recovering from mastectomies. They have bundled care units of necessities to inner-city school children. They have advocated an end to domestic violence with the annual Paint the Town Purple campaign, and they have participated in many international projects to help the world's poor, who are so often women and children.

On Sunday, February 22, I will join the soroptimists as they host their ninth annual recognition awards luncheon, which will honour women and girls who have made a difference in our community in the Tri-Cities.

So 2009 is the club's tenth anniversary. I know that members of this House will want to join me in congratulating the soroptimists of the Tri-Cities for their decade of outstanding service to Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody.

Barack obama

J. Nuraney: With reference to the statement that my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds made, I would like to simply say this. Today Martin Luther King's dream has come to pass.

[1350]

Today President Obama is making his first foreign trip since taking office with a visit to Canada. His arrival was greeted with a lot of excitement, and this visit will be viewed as a big step forward in the relations between our two great nations.

I feel a special attachment to President Obama, as we both have ties with Kenya. I have friends who knew his father. As the first African American President, he has become a beacon of hope for all those who aspire to a better life. With his background and his values well rooted in the ethics and beliefs of equality, fairness, freedom and commitment to close cooperation with the allies, he will bring hope in addressing some very difficult problems around the world.

His visit to Canada will give him a glimpse of what we hold dear to our hearts, which is the sense of collaboration and cooperation in matters important to us, like free trade, the environment and peaceful solutions to political problems around the world. Many look to him for leadership that is needed in today's economic crisis and the problems facing the world in conflicts among nations, terrorism and eradicating poverty in the developing countries.

I am confident that President Obama will resist political pressures in America to make our borders less open so that we are not faced with restricted trade. It is in that spirit of friendship that I ask the House to join me in offering a special welcome to President Obama.

Oral Questions

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY

C. James: On February 12 the Attorney General signed off on a service plan. This "service plan was prepared under my direction…. I am accountable for the basis" of this plan. Those are his words over his signature. That service plan, as we know, imposes cuts to crime and safety.

So my question is to the Attorney General. Will he explain why last week he signed off on deep cuts to courts and prosecutors in the middle of a gang war?

Hon. W. Oppal: We are, in fact, increasing the number of Crown prosecutors that are dedicated to and addressing the issue of gang violence. As we announced on Friday, we are adding ten new Crown prosecutors
[ Page 13830 ]
— experienced Crown prosecutors — to the 16 prosecutors that are already there to fight gang violence. This is on top of the 49 prosecutors we have that are there to address the causes of organized crime.

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

C. James: The public are concerned. All British Columbians are concerned. They want to see action from this government. The Attorney General did not answer the question. There are deep cuts in the budget that he signed off on.

So my question again to the Attorney General: in the middle of a gang war, in the middle of a crisis for the public in British Columbia, why did he sign off on a plan that has cuts to crime and prosecutors?

Hon. W. Oppal: The public and this House should know that we are committed to prosecuting all serious criminal cases. We will not resile from that commitment.

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

[1355]

C. James: Perhaps it's news for the Attorney General, but when you cut programs and services, you don't provide as much service to fight crime on behalf of the public of British Columbia.

Yesterday the Attorney General told the public that the budget was prepared under his direction. His signature is there on that budget. So my question again — very straightforward, very simple — to the Attorney General: does he believe his budget or not? Why would he sign off on cuts to fighting crime?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I've been in the criminal justice system for over 35 years, and I have never seen a prosecution fail during that time due to a lack of resources. I have never seen a prosecution not proceed due to a lack of resources. The criminal justice branch is made up of professional people who prosecute cases in this province on a daily basis, and they don't compromise their principle for commitment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: Maybe the Attorney General doesn't appreciate it, but everyone else understands that when you look at the documents, the fact is that the government has cut the crime and safety budget. There's no way to weasel around that. It's there in black and white. It's printed by the government of British Columbia.

So if you compare last year's service plan to this year's, here's what you find. The Attorney General increases the budget every year for ministry headquarters — every year. And every year he cuts courts and prosecutors. It's pretty simple — more executives, fewer people to put the gangs in jail.

Again to the Attorney General. It's a very simple question. It's easy to answer. Can he explain why he approved and signed off on a budget that cuts prosecutors and budgets increases for executives?

Hon. W. Oppal: We are not cutting prosecutors. We're putting more prosecutors in the courts.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, we now have 49 prosecutors who are committed to addressing the causes of organized crime. We have 26 prosecutors who are now involved in gang violence. During the '90s the NDP had one prosecutor doing that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, I guess we're going to see a first in the Legislature today. The Attorney General, back on February 6, said: "I've never deflected criticism in my life. If I've done something wrong, if we've screwed up in my ministry, I'm the first to admit it."

I give the Attorney General an opportunity today. The numbers are very clear. It's laid out in a three-year budget. He signed it. He's a former lawyer. He's a former judge of the Court of Appeal. It's very straightforward. The budget cuts prosecution services; it increases the executive budget.

Again to the Attorney General: why did he sign it if he didn't believe it was true?

Hon. W. Oppal: One thing some members of the opposition need to do is think beyond the numbers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

[1400]
[ Page 13831 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: Since we became government, we have embarked on creative, innovative procedures….

Interjections.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I'm sure the members opposite have never heard of a community court. It's too creative for their minds.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Attorney, just sit down for a second.

Members, we're not going to…. Members. We're not going to continue until we can hear.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: Because of the proactive, creative methods that we've used in fighting crime, such as the community court, which deals with some of the root causes of crime, in fact we're getting fewer people going through the system. For instance, because of our significant resources to fight crime, the theft of motor vehicles has decreased by 24 percent. Break and enters are down by 22 percent. Possession of stolen property has decreased by 13 percent.

S. Simpson: On February 12 the Attorney General signs his name to a service plan, a plan that cuts the budget for crime and safety. It's his credibility that's on the line here. The Premier announces the next day that he's going to fight gangs. It's a sham. Everybody in this province knows it.

Let's be clear. This isn't just this side talking. I'd refer to comments from Steve Fudge, the president of the B.C. Crown Counsel Association who, on the 18th of February, said: "We run a pretty tight ship, and I just don't see how we can lose 100 bodies and still function at the level we're trying to function at today."

My question to the minister is this. He knows that he either sat on his hands when the Premier and the Finance Minister were slashing that budget and did nothing, or he failed in convincing them to really fight crime. Which was it?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, there are many ways of fighting crime. There are many ways of addressing the causes of violent crime and property crime, and we're involving ourselves in that. As I mentioned a moment ago, the community court is one of those. The prolific offender management program is another way that we're fighting crime. All of those measures are resulting in a reduction of crime, and that's what we're committed to doing.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Well, I guess the other option here may be referred to in the comments of the Attorney General yesterday, where he was quoted as saying…. When asked about these cuts, he said: "That's for years 2 and 3 of the budget cycle, and anything could happen between now and then." So we have the Attorney General saying: "Don't believe years two and three of this. They're not credible."

My question is to the Finance Minister. Could the Finance Minister tell us, since your Attorney General doesn't believe your budget, why should anybody in British Columbia believe this is a serious budget?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, there are many measures and many policies and many initiatives that will reduce crime. The number of prosecutors in the courtrooms is one. The police investigations is another. We have put 950 new police officers on the street since 2001 — 168 new police around the streets.

[1405]

Our Crown prosecutors are working with the police. That's being done for the first time where the Crown and the police work together. Those measures have been successful in the past, and I'm sure they'll continue to be in the future.

GANG ACTIVITY in B.C.

B. Ralston: Mr. Plecas, a noted criminologist who teaches at the University of the Fraser Valley, has said that the number of gangs in British Columbia has grown from ten at the beginning of this century to over a hundred now. According to the new Liberal principle that's just been enunciated in this Legislature on budgeting, on thinking beyond the numbers, is that a number that the minister chooses to brush aside as well?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't really understand the relevance of that question, but I'll do my best.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes, the number of gangs has grown. No question about that. But we're in a position to address that cause. We're working with the police in order to determine what we can do about it and to prosecute those people who are violating our laws, those people who are making life difficult in our streets today — the homicides that are taking place on an almost daily basis.
[ Page 13832 ]

These cycles of violence take place from time to time, and we want to address those causes of crime. We want to make sure that those people who are committing the crimes are charged by the police and prosecuted by our prosecutors.

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY

M. Farnworth: Well, the Attorney General has stood here in this question period and completely missed the point.

An Hon. Member: I don't think so.

M. Farnworth: He most certainly has missed the point.

The number one issue right now for public safety is gang violence in this province, and yet he signed off on a budget that cuts resources to prosecutors, prosecutorial services in this province. He's supposed to uphold the law in this province. Why would he sign off on a budget that cuts services?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, the real issue here right now as far as fighting gang violence is concerned is fairly obvious, and that is that nobody is helping the police. The police go to a crime scene, and they're not getting any help from the public. The prosecutors are there. Our prosecutors are there willing and able to prosecute cases, but the fact is that we're not getting any help from the public and we need that.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The thing is that the public is not getting any help from this government in this budget. But the problem is not just with the Attorney General. It's with the rest of this government, in particular the Solicitor General and the Premier.

An Hon. Member: Let's have an election.

M. Farnworth: I'd love to see an election, hon. Member, because I know exactly….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue.

Regional Police services

M. Farnworth: Maybe we'll get an answer to this. The Solicitor General, when asked about regional policing, dismisses it, says that it's not the answer. Yet the same day he said that, the Premier says that he's open to looking at regional policing in British Columbia.

[1410]

So my question to the Solicitor General is: is he right or is the person who put him in cabinet right? Please give us an answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're not starting till we get some quiet.

Hon. M. de Jong: Here's what's clear from the discussion that we've been having for the past few days. [Applause.]

I'll regard that as anticipatory applause.

At a time when we are discussing a critically important matter and the government is devoting more resources — more police added to the almost 1,000 additional police officers that are already on the streets of British Columbia; more prosecutors dedicated to the task of focusing on gang-related crimes compared to what existed previously, which was virtually nothing; and a concerted effort to ensure that the prison facilities exist to put those gangsters behind bars — there is an opposition who are great at talking.

But when it comes to actually building those facilities, building those prisons, they've got a very different attitude. We're still waiting for the opposition to stand up and stop blocking the construction of a prison in Burnaby so that gangsters can be placed behind bars.

PROTECTION OF PARKSVILLE WATERSHED

S. Fraser: And now for something completely different. Island Timberlands has been logging old growth right in the middle of the Englishman River. It's on an island there and along the banks. Englishman River is a key water source for the city of Parksville and the entire region. On Monday the Parksville city council passed a unanimous resolution urging this government to step in, intervene and halt this logging.

To the Minister of Agriculture and Lands. He is responsible for the Private Managed Forest Land Act. What action will he take to ensure that Parksville's watershed and the regional watershed are protected?

Hon. R. Cantelon: I'd like to thank the member opposite for raising the question, because it puts forward the issue of how privately managed forests are managed. I want to tell you that in this particular instance, every precaution was taken. In fact, only 21 out of 228 merchantable trees were removed from this site.

However, I phoned up the president of Island Timberlands immediately when I heard about the distress that it was causing Parksville council. They sent out a contingent of people to examine the site, including representatives from DFO, representatives from my office. The
[ Page 13833 ]
comments from the DFO were that this was a very well-managed harvest. It was a selective harvest by helicopter. Only two trees actually hit the ground. In their opinion, there's no damage to the riparian area and the watershed.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Fraser: I'm sure that the minister's constituents are comforted by that answer. [Applause.]

Thank you to the government side.

[1415]

The minister is responsible for the Private Managed Forest Land Act. That is the act that stripped the rights of communities to have any say over what happens in their watersheds. This government brought that in. This is the minister responsible.

His government is a major shareholder in Island Timberlands. They own one-quarter of it. Remember, they purchased that through a secret holding company out of Manitoba. We learned that last year. So they're putting this watershed at risk, and I've spoken with stream biologists, and they've confirmed that too.

It's time for the minister to get his priorities straight, I think. As the Auditor General found out, this government failed to take into account the public interest when it comes to private managed forest lands. So to the minister….

Interjections.

S. Fraser: They want a question; I'll give them a question.

The city of Parksville, this minister's constituents, have asked this government, his government, to stop this type of harmful logging from occurring in the future. Will he put the public interest first, his constituents first, and support the resolution and protect the people of Parksville and the regional district?

Hon. R. Cantelon: Firstly, I certainly do take the constituents' needs at heart. Those also include those who are trying to continue to make a living in the logging and forestry industry. I want to assure this House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Cantelon: I want to assure this House that this side of the House is very concerned and ultimately concerned with the quality of our environment and watersheds, and this minister takes that responsibility very seriously.

Now, I'd like to talk about…. The member also raises the issue of public input. This was logged under a plan, a watershed management plan, that involved consultation with the Arrowsmith Watersheds Society and other groups. So there was consultation, and this limited, selective stem logging was done within the context of that plan, and it has been inspected by biologists representing the community, representing the Private Managed Forests Council and independent people.

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR RURAL B.C.

R. Austin: Mr. Speaker, in 2003 the Liberal government delivered its heartlands budget. Remember that? Another flavour-of-the-month catchphrase from the Premier. In the Interior, it's now referred to as the hurtlands budget, because that's when we started to feel the pain of this Premier's neglect of rural B.C.

The Premier may have just woken up to the fact that B.C. is being hurt by the economic crisis, but rural B.C. has been feeling this pain for years. Yet there was nothing in the budget to address the catastrophic impacts of this downturn in our resource-dependent communities.

The wealth of this province is created in rural B.C. Why has this government abandoned the engine of this province in its time of need?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, in this budget today are initiatives that are going to benefit northern and rural British Columbia. We're talking not only about the $129 million in the community development trust that's benefiting displaced forest workers in that member's community, but in addition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: In addition to flowing the funds through that trust, we also have $30 million of additional money that's going into the B.C. rural secretariat to support economic diversification in the north.

In this budget, as a result of the revenue-neutral carbon tax plan, we are flowing an additional $200 million per homeowner in northern and rural British Columbia. That's on top of the $185 million that we have flowed into the Northern Development Trust to benefit communities all across the north.

[1420]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
[ Page 13834 ]

R. Austin: What the minister fails to also include is that in this budget there's a 30 percent cut to energy and mines, a 14 percent cut to forestry, a 46 percent cut to agriculture, a 28 percent cut to tourism, an 11 percent cut to the environment. No money for mountain pine beetle. No help for laid-off forest workers. If that's not abandonment, I don't know what is.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Austin: Can the Finance Minister explain why he is abandoning rural B.C. when he should be investing in all the real wealth-creating industries of this province?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, it's too bad that this member didn't show up at the Northern Economic Summit that was held in Prince George, because if he had been there, he would have realized from the 650-some-odd delegates that attended that summit that there's a real sense of optimism in northern British Columbia.

There's a recognition that all corners of British Columbia are being felt by the economic downturn.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: But there's also a recognition that we're going to come through this stronger than just about any other jurisdiction in North America. That includes northern British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I can also tell you that there's a recognition on the part of those that attended that conference that northern British Columbia, under a B.C. Liberal government, where you've got unemployment rates today…. While they're a little bit higher than they were last year, they're still one heck of a lot lower than they were in the 1990s.

N. Macdonald: Rural British Columbians have been struggling with a downturn in the forest industry for years now, yet this government did nothing again in the budget to help forest workers — nothing.

Everything the minister talks about is federal money — nothing from the province. They have again abandoned forest-dependent communities. Now times are even tougher economically, and this Premier has cut tourism by 46 percent over the next three years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: Another important rural issue, another important rural industry, and it's cut.

How can this government justify cutting promotion of rural communities, while they splurge on the Premier's pet projects, like a retractable roof for B.C. Place?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is a member of the Legislature who actually opposes independent power production projects in his own riding that are going to generate $4.3 billion of activity in northern and rural British Columbia.

This is a member who opposes the 1,100 jobs for IPPs. This is a member that represents a part of British Columbia that in the 1990s had over 15 percent unemployment compared to less than 8 percent unemployment today.

This is a member who wants to rip up the softwood lumber agreement and further compromise forest jobs in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Hon. S. Bond: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

Hon. S. Bond: I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents in the Robson Valley, calling for further improvements to groundwater protection in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on the supplementary estimates — Committee of Supply.

[1425]

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:27 p.m.

On Vote 22(S): ministry operations, $186,000,000 (continued).
[ Page 13835 ]

N. Macdonald: We'll just maybe continue with the $70 million. I thank, again, the Minister of Finance for his explanation earlier on.

Coming back to the $70 million, the minister characterized it as changed in nature and timing. The first that I would like to examine is the change in nature. Could the minister specify in very clear ways how those funds have changed in nature? What did the minister mean by that term?

Hon. K. Krueger: As we discussed this morning, we wanted to have this money in the hands of local governments. We felt that it would be an encouragement to them and to their citizens to actually know that the money was in the account. We felt it would be reasonable to ask them for a plan as to how they were going to disburse the funds and to require that there be reporting out to the people that those governments represent.

I think it's interesting that the member keys on the traffic fine revenue-sharing. This morning he and his colleagues were questioning whether it was appropriate to be doing this. At lunchtime I was reading a local media commentary from Kamloops where his leader had been saying that we should be getting money out to communities to help them with public safety issues.

The NDP government in the '90s didn't flow traffic fine revenues to communities. We've been doing that for years now. We have flowed over a quarter billion dollars to communities and asked them to try and focus on community safety and loss prevention type issues, including policing if they choose.

[1430]

N. Macdonald: So the experience that we have in the communities that I represent is that…. These are communities that are less than 5,000. Those communities used to be subsidized with police, and that is no longer the case. That was a substantial change for taxation. So for a lot of those smaller communities, that was a big hit.

Now, I understand that the promise was made and eventually kept to flow the money back. The minister has said that the nature of how that is done is changing. Maybe, for my understanding, the minister could explain how it is usually done and then highlight what is different this year in how the money is collected and disbursed.

What I would like to know is…. The minister talks about the communities reporting. Is that normal procedure? Just walk through what is normally done and what is different this time about the flow of funds. What is different about the nature of these funds?

Hon. K. Krueger: The practice since we began flowing the traffic fine revenues to communities has been to pay the money over anywhere between April and June.

With regard to the evolution of the nature of these grants, we're in active consultations with the UBCM, which is consulting with its member communities. We want to allow flexibility, allow people to respond in their communities to local needs. So the full picture of what the nature of the use of these funds will become will be different from community to community. It's something that's being worked out as we speak.

N. Macdonald: If the nature is going to be different and how this is going to work is being negotiated at the moment, it does come back to the question about why we are doing supplementary estimates from last year. Why would this not be put in next year's budget or the budget of the year when you've actually figured out how you're going to flow these forms? Why is it put in supplementary estimates? Why not simply put it in the estimates for the year that it's intended?

Clearly, it's not ready to go yet. Clearly, it's part of a process you're still working on. So why did you come in with supplementary estimates? Why not simply put it in the budget where it properly belongs, for next year?

Hon. K. Krueger: I thought it might be useful for the members opposite to have the hard numbers, where I talked about a percentage earlier in this morning's debate.

In 1996 the NDP government had unconditional grants to municipalities of $141 million. By 2001 they had reduced that to only $36 million — a reduction of $105 million, which as I said this morning, is almost 75 percent.

The minister responsible for this ministry in 1997 was the person who is now the NDP House Leader and sits to the Leader of the Opposition's right, and $60 million in cuts were made to local government grants while he was in that chair.

In 1999 the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who sits to the Leader of the Opposition's left, was the minister responsible for this ministry, and a $42 million cut occurred that year.

We don't do things that way. We actually believe that local governments are in a position of being tremendously accountable to their constituents. We believe that they're responsible and will make the right decisions. We made decisions not only to flow traffic fine revenues 100 percent to communities but to give almost $2 billion in additional funding — new programs, Towns for Tomorrow, LocalMotion, grants of many types — to communities. We think they make good decisions with it.

[1435]

It's a different philosophy than the NDP, who thought they should not give the money and make decisions themselves. The highly process-oriented NDP that we saw throughout the 1990s, rather than results-oriented, is the same NDP that's asking these questions across the floor today.
[ Page 13836 ]

We have a different and, I would submit, much more successful way of working with other governments. We don't fight with the federal government. We don't fight with municipalities. We respect their ability to manage funds. We think that local electors choose them carefully.

Our decision is that we have more money this year than we think we will have next year or the year after that, and we felt that it would be good for the members' constituent municipalities — their councils, their mayors — and the people who live there if we made this decision, so that's what we've done.

N. Macdonald: It was, I guess, a fairly specific question and a rhetorical answer, and I think rhetoric is not uncommon in this place. But a rhetorical answer allows a rhetorical question.

What I would say is that my experience has been in local government. What I have seen here are some fundamental problems with how local government is dealt with. I'll just give the minister a few examples for him to consider.

In terms of decision-making, I agree with the sentiments that the minister expressed — that this is a level of government that sits in a very close, intimate sort of setting with the population that it represents, particularly in small communities where you make a decision, and the next day you see the people impacted at the grocery store. So for me, I believe strongly in that local decision-making process.

I'll just point to a few examples from communities in my area where that opportunity to make decisions has been taken away, and one of them is something that was raised here in question period. The fundamental objection to IPPs lies with Bill 30, section 56, and the removal of people in our area to have a say over rivers in our area. That is a fundamentally wrong decision that this government has made, and that is the objection that is most strongly expressed by residents in my community.

Of a community of 4,000, in three weeks a thousand people signed a petition protesting a planned IPP on Thompson Falls. These are people that simply want a say on decisions that impact them. There are 23 of these projects that surround Golden and Revelstoke and others that will severely impact Invermere. So taking away decision-making from local government is something this government has done with Bill 30, section 56, and I feel strongly that's wrong.

As well, you have, with the decision on Jumbo Glacier resort…. Very clearly there was a promise made before the last election that the people at the regional district representing the people of the area would have a say in whether that resort was appropriate or not. There, again, we see an awful lot of backroom deals that seem to undermine that clear promise.

The most recent would be with the environmental assessment going ahead and being given an extension. The regional district of East Kootenay wasn't given an opportunity to speak to it. They probably would not have, because they expect to still be making the zoning decision. But the regional district of Central Kootenay, I'm sure, has been in contact with the ministry and has found that that's a problem.

So in terms of the nature of this project with the $70 million for traffic, my understanding, then, from what the minister has said is that we have basically a process that's still being worked out, that you're talking to communities in the UBCM and trying to think through how this money would flow through.

Would you explain to me again the timing for this year — and I apologize if the minister has already gone through this — and how the minister sees it working in future years? So timing.

[1440]

Hon. K. Krueger: The discussion we were having was about the nature of these granting programs, but the question put just now is timing. I would love to engage the member on the IPP question, but it's totally irrelevant to the matter before us. We'll be doing that in April and May.

But the timing I did go over before, and I don't mind at all doing it again. The $186 million that we're dealing with right now is a one-time grant. There will be another flow of funds in July 2009 and another one after that in July of 2010. They will be smaller amounts than this.

The municipalities will not lose any revenue at all. They simply are going to have money in their accounts, so they don't need to worry whether it's going to take months to recover the funds after they've incurred expenses on projects they'll be doing. They'll have the money to launch special policing initiatives within their borders if they choose. So the timing of when the money is spent will be within their local autonomy.

C. Wyse: Before lunch we had been discussing a number of items. In my estimation…. I wish to state here that I had given an interpretation — after many opportunities that I provided, in my judgment, for the hon. minister to elaborate upon how this supplementary budget of $186 million fit into an overall plan that had been thought out, and it was being responded to. And I had outlined this morning that in my judgment I had not received any answers. So that was the interpretation that I gave.

Now, the other part that runs through this is my attempt to see what the game plan is here for this $186 million. I've looked at the previous time — the budget year, the supplement and then when the budget had been introduced for the upcoming years — and this supplementary influx of funds in the bill that we have in front of us stands out all by itself. It's a one-time-only shot that is here.
[ Page 13837 ]

The minister has left me very much with the attempt, if you like, to roll out good news, to make sure that it is rolled out in a timely fashion, from his perspective. And we will get to the specifics of this — but in a timely fashion. Community announcements, projects for some 40 communities, of which the one that we know about happens to be Kamloops — an area that is near and dear to all of us, I'm sure, but particularly, maybe, more dear to the minister.

In an earlier part, with local government, he rolled out aspects around assessments and changes to the assessment procedure, an item that is very crucial to local government. I'm going to come back to that aspect of it. But my question is: how much…? By what factor does the gas tax increase for all British Columbians, including municipalities, on July 1? Is it a factor of one, of two, of three? What is the factor for the increase of the gas tax effective July 1?

[1445]

Hon. K. Krueger: I wonder if the member would do us both a favour, and when he sees his Hansard, from those remarks count how many times he said "I" and "my" and "me" in his question. It's about communities. It's not about the member. It's not about any member over here. It's about governments working together and helping communities.

The member suggests this is about rolling out good news. This is about transferring funds to communities that need them and want them and have important things to do to meet our mutual goals of ensuring that jobs are preserved in those communities, that jobs are created, that families and workers have support.

I'd ask the Chair, please, to remind the member we're not here to talk about a policy on other matters. We're not here to talk about the carbon tax — even though I'd love to, because we're proud of that initiative and where it's taking this province. But we're not here for that purpose either.

We're here to talk about transferring $186 million to communities who are anxious to receive the money, and that member is responsible for representing those communities. I don't think they're going to like what he's doing.

C. Wyse: The supplementary bill that is in front of us contains within it carbon tax rebate for local governments. It is clearly contained in the supplementary estimates. Clearly, the minister has not demonstrated what overall plan fits in for the various items. There is contained in this legislation an item for carbon tax for local government.

Apparently, the minister has forgotten that it was local government that raised the issue about this download on them. We now have the government's response to that download.

What I'm attempting to do is to determine how much further download is coming to local government and then from there to determine whether the supplementary figures, in actual fact, provide adequate protection for local government after the election.

Once more to the minister: what is the factor of increase for the carbon tax that these municipalities are going to receive July 1?

Hon. K. Krueger: We did cover this same ground this morning, but for the member's benefit again, it's really quite a simple thing. On page 110 of your budget document, the $3 million for rebating carbon tax revenues received from local governments is listed.

Yes, local government raised this issue. Yes, we resolved it with them. We want them to sign on to the carbon action plan. The money has been set aside to reimburse them their expenditures for carbon tax, and in subsequent years we will continue to rebate the carbon tax that they've paid for direct expenditures on the fuels that were already thoroughly discussed this morning.

When the member repeatedly wants to talk about an overall plan, it's a plan that we prepared while in opposition. It's a plan that we rolled out in government. It's a plan that's worked very well and continues to in the face of the worldwide economic turmoil that people and communities are struggling with, certainly, all over this continent, right across our country and around the world.

We're not here to talk about all of those things but about a specific action that our government is taking to provide certainty and reassurance to communities with this assured funding.

C. Wyse: The answer to the question — and I will leave it up to the minister to correct it if I'm, in actual fact, in error — is: double on July 1. As the minister had stated this morning, we go from $3 million to $4 million in the next year. Double three is six, in my mind.

[1450]

What I'm attempting to have the minister clarify is whether this is just a spot announcement dealing with the actual urgency of an election, whether this is a budget that can be trusted or whether it is nothing more than showmanship, smoke and mirrors.

Subject to the analysis, there are 186 local governments that clearly had requested protection from this download, very clearly had brought this forward to their annual general meeting and, very clearly, by the number of resolutions that were there, had voiced their concern. And, in case we've forgotten, it also happened to be at that meeting months ago where the announcement was made that there would be protection given.

So I don't think that I am out of line when, months later, I'm dealing with a supplementary budget — to be stonewalled and to be moved around with answers to questions….
[ Page 13838 ]

Now, earlier I referred to another item that had a profound effect upon local government, and the desire to roll out good news rapidly without understanding its total consequences does no one any service. In these trying times the financial plan has to be subject and stand up to scrutiny. It has to stand up to the projection of those scrutinies from the time we have started the debate and from the time we've been given the information, which was this morning for me, and it has to stand up to that scrutiny.

That's what this process is about. I make no apologies for doing my job in establishing what the intention is here. Other people have pointed out the effect of what occurs from a previous action of rolling things out too quickly — that the consequences that occur are not what were intended to do.

Clearly, what we have heard is the argument that this $186 million is meant to put stability into the communities. The stability for local government is in their operating budget. That's where their stability is. In that part of the budget, there's a 24 percent reduction, millions of dollars, in the grants from this government that go to all local governments.

There is a shift in that part of the budget where it truly matters. Coupled with the assessment — freezing it, the threats of doing such and items of that nature — also brings into question the required confirmation that the local government's cost is still going to be able to be found by those local governments, with the ability for them to still be able to raise their taxes.

Clearly, the minister must step forward and deal with his bill, his portion of the bill, and explain its consequences. That's what this opportunity is about that is being provided.

My question to the minister: will he provide assurances that all the gas-related expenses that are encountered by local governments will be covered by this government in this supplementary set of estimates?

[1455]

Hon. K. Krueger: We did go over exactly this question and this material just several hours ago, this morning, but I'll remind the member. Perhaps he can read that in Hansard later as well.

It's called the climate action revenue incentive program. It was committed by the Premier at the UBCM convention. This $3 million covers the expenditures that local governments incurred for a carbon tax on fuels that they purchased directly. We intend, and have committed to them, to do likewise in each of the coming years. So in next year's budget there will be a line item to deal with whatever carbon tax expenditures the local governments have incurred over the year that we're about to start.

C. Wyse: The answer leaves relatively large areas to move through, with the delivery on the actual costs that local government is going to incur. I know we're dealing with local government and the effect upon them of this particular tax. The minister has spoken eloquently, and we're attempting to determine whether the eloquentness is hollow or not, whether there's substance to it.

He talked about communities and the effect upon communities, and I believe when he tells me that. But that effect upon communities is broader and deeper by this particular tax on just local government. It includes school boards. It includes non-profits. It includes individuals within the community. And the list goes on — hospitals and so on.

It also includes the effect of the non-services that have not been provided by the senior levels of government — housing, mental illness, addictions and the like — that have put the homeless by the tens in some communities, by the hundreds in other communities, on the streets of those communities. Without the resources to deal with those items and those outfalls, they have to deal with them. Some local governments have gotten so desperate that they're looking at taking on the responsibilities of the download that they have experienced.

So when we come back to the supplementary bill of this $186 million, how true does it ring for providing for the abandonment of these communities and the people that live in them? Hundreds of jobs have been lost in communities — hundreds; collectively, in actual fact across all of British Columbia, thousands of jobs. Where do they live? They live in our communities.

It's important that we also be concentrating upon, with this $186 million, these one-time-only top-ups. As we move through it, we will determine whether they are dealing with the capital aspect, how many communities are going to get benefits from it, when are they going to get benefits from it — those types of items. We will get there.

[1500]

But all communities in British Columbia — each and every one of them — now have homelessness in them, on their streets 12 months out of the year, year-round; mental illness and what goes on with it in every community…. And local government lives with that.

It may be dismissive to say: "Let's move on. Let's hurry and roll out the good news. Let's get it in front of everybody." As the minister himself has mentioned, I want to start dealing with what's going to happen in April and after that.

There's still a job to be done here, and that's dealing with the supplementary estimate, to see whether it rings with any solidness to it or whether it rings hollow and it's simply meant to get out of here and run out announcements where the government believes and wishes that they should be run out.

The Chair: The question, Member.
[ Page 13839 ]

C. Wyse: Which leads me to my question: how did the government come up with the $3 million in the supplementary?

Hon. K. Krueger: The ministry has been consulting with local governments and with the UBCM. It took a sample from local governments of what they deemed to be their expenditures with regard to carbon tax and asked the local governments how they thought we should deal with this. They didn't want a formula. They wanted to actually submit the documentation of their expenditures. That's what they are doing, and they will be reimbursed from the $3 million.

The member ranged quite broadly across the landscape in his question, but having raised the issue of infrastructure funding, I'd just like to give him an example of the progressive approaches this government has taken.

The Towns for Tomorrow program. It was not, as the member seems to think, something that was abruptly announced recently. In fact, it was announced over two years ago. I was the Premier's Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Development at the time. We were concerned about the fact that small communities often can't take advantage of infrastructure programs that are announced by senior governments because they lack the financial capacity to partner equally.

The Premier, who has a great deal of experience with local government and with the UBCM, conceived a program where we would pay the province. This one isn't a federal and provincial shared program. We would pay 80 percent of the cost of the project.

I asked him what sort of rules he wanted to see prepared around the program, and he said: "As few as possible. I want to focus on whatever they deem to be their highest priority." I don't know how you could get a program that's more responsive to the needs of local communities than that.

It's true that all three levels of government have been partnering to deal with the issue of homelessness, and partnering very successfully. If local governments bring on an application that focuses on homeless issues under Towns for Tomorrow, we happily accept that. They choose what their priorities are; we don't impose.

I hope that answers the member's question adequately.

[1505]

C. Wyse: I will get back to what I understood was the germane part to the question that I posed about dealing with the system that was used to develop the rebate. If I understood things correctly, it was one of sampling. Then if I understood correctly, there would be a 100 percent rebate of the funds that were…. For the documentation, there would be a 100 percent rebate.

I don't wish to go through all the local governments, but I do wish to have confirmed that my understanding is accurate and that it applies to both the incorporated areas and the regional districts.

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes. The commitment is to reimburse the direct costs of local governments, including incorporated local governments and the regional districts.

C. Wyse: I thank the minister for an answer that I was able to understand. Maybe my questions got a little bit better as we have been working on this together.

I would also like to ask the minister whether he would give me a commitment — rather than me going through and reading out the names of all the incorporated areas and regional districts — that a list of the actual funding requests from the government be provided in writing to me at a later date.

Hon. K. Krueger: Those have not, obviously, all been received yet. When they are, we will do that.

C. Wyse: Is the minister anticipating that this will be in before May 12?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes, by the end of March.

C. Wyse: I apologize to the minister. With me beginning to think of what I didn't understand, I may have missed a part of his answer. Do I have the commitment from the minister that he will provide that information to me in writing immediately after the end of March?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes, that's correct. We should have all of the documentation by March 31, and we'll provide it to the opposition critic as soon as we do.

C. Wyse: When is the minister anticipating the cheques to be written and sent to the local government?

Hon. K. Krueger: Our intent is that those moneys will be flowed to the communities before the end of March. Both deadlines are the same.

C. Wyse: At this time I'm going to turn it over to one of my colleagues. He has some questions that he would like to pursue on this.

[1510]

G. Gentner: Thank you to the minister and his staff who are here today. I'll just start off by saying to the minister from the Thompson watershed that what happens up in your neck of the woods obviously can find its way to the shores of Delta. We have had quite a concern in my community for some time relative to the dredging concerns, the flooding, etc. I'm wondering: out of this $186 million supplementary budget, how much is going
[ Page 13840 ]
to be devoted to those types of programs and to which communities?

Hon. K. Krueger: The issue of flood control funding is not a matter that is dealt with in this $186 million supplemental estimate.

There is an agreement under the Building Canada fund, and that'll be through the Solicitor General's ministry. You'll have an opportunity to deal with that in the budget debate. It's a $25 million program. As I understand it, each of the three levels of government will put in $25 million, but that's a separate issue from this.

These programs, including things like Towns for Tomorrow and LocalMotion, are funded by application from municipalities, according to their choice of priorities.

G. Gentner: To the minister: how many applications did the ministry receive for financial help from municipalities and regional districts?

Hon. K. Krueger: Currently in the system are over 100 applications from municipalities for the Towns for Tomorrow program and also more than 100 other applications under the LocalMotion program. The sum of the amounts applied for with regard to Towns for Tomorrow is $37 million in active applications right now and under LocalMotion, $26 million.

G. Gentner: So we're looking at about 200 applications. How many were approved?

Hon. K. Krueger: The approval process is actively underway. The commitment was approval decisions within 60 days, and the 60 days are up March 16. We're very much on track to meet that deadline, and I'm actually very confident that we will make those decisions weeks before that.

G. Gentner: So in effect, Minister, we are going to approve the expenditure of these grants without knowing where they're going. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Krueger: What we're dealing with here is approving the overall funding for the grants. The grants themselves…. As they're decided, it'll be very public and certainly available to the opposition.

G. Gentner: How many agencies outside of municipalities and districts are going to receive money out of this $186 million supplementary budget?

[1515]

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is none. This funding is all for local governments.

G. Gentner: So if I have the math right — hopefully, the minister can correct me — we're looking at close to $60 million allocated through these various applications. What is the difference going to be spent towards?

Hon. K. Krueger: Beyond the specific infrastructure programs, the municipalities have a lot of autonomy. Our hope is that the funds will substantially be spent on community safety measures, whether it be policing or crime prevention programs. But the communities will decide, as they have in the past.

G. Gentner: So for community safety. Would the minister suggest that some of that money will also be used, indirectly or directly, towards security of the Olympics?

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is no.

G. Gentner: I'm just wondering: what is the largest grant that will be awarded under this budget?

Hon. K. Krueger: The largest assured funding allocation is to the city of Vancouver — $15,723,893. That's all of these different aspects, cumulative.

G. Gentner: So $15 million-plus for the city of Vancouver. Just out of interest, what else, on top of it, do you expect to be granting the city of Vancouver beyond the $15 million?

Hon. K. Krueger: I wasn't sure if I heard the member correctly, or he might not have heard me correctly. The number was $15,723,893. I thought he might have said 50, but 15 is what I was saying.

The other question has really no relevance to the supplemental estimates. That's Vancouver's allocation out of this $186 million.

G. Gentner: I'm just wondering how much of the $186 million will be awarded to the village of Whistler in this budget.

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is $678,821.

G. Gentner: That is exclusively based on the LocalMotion grants and the other grants, the so-called 200 applications?

[1520]

Hon. K. Krueger: The member is crossing over from one aspect to another here. These numbers we're talking about right now are not specific grant allocations for the infrastructure programs, because as we discussed a few minutes ago, those aren't decided yet.

This is a combination of the small communities grants and the traffic fine revenues. Not all communities qual-
[ Page 13841 ]
ify, of course, for the small communities grants. But that's the number that we were just discussing — not specific allocations under the infrastructure programs, which haven't been decided yet.

G. Gentner: To the minister: how many applications are still outstanding for the village of Whistler relative to these infrastructure projects that are forthcoming?

Hon. K. Krueger: We don't have that number at our fingertips, but we'll provide it to the member in writing. The Towns for Tomorrow program only applies to communities of 15,000 population or less. We're certain that Whistler has at least one application into the LocalMotion infrastructure program.

G. Gentner: I'm just wondering when I'll receive that information. Can we put a date on it, please?

Hon. K. Krueger: As I mentioned, the deadline is March 16, and we'll let the member know very shortly after that.

G. Gentner: So a time frame would be before April 12. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is yes.

G. Gentner: I'm just curious as well. How much of this $186 million will be allocated towards the funding of any P3s?

Hon. K. Krueger: That's entirely up to the local governments.

G. Gentner: So there are no criteria for how you award this money? You're quite indifferent to where the money is spent?

Hon. K. Krueger: Of course there are criteria around the programs. As I mentioned earlier, Towns for Tomorrow…. The essential rule is that whatever the community's priority is, we're happy to accept an application for that. We'll also happily give the member the criteria for LocalMotion. I think that answers the question.

[1525]

G. Gentner: I'm curious. Obviously, the minister is either being evasive or doesn't know about the role-playing of P3s in the funding of the $186 million. So my question, therefore, would be: what kind of discourse has the minister had with Partnerships B.C. relative to any projects that are associated with the funding coming out of this budget?

Hon. K. Krueger: I wasn't meaning to be evasive at all. I said that it's up to the municipalities what sort of construction arrangements they want to make. The maximum grant under Towns for Tomorrow is $400,000. These projects are probably not large enough that people would spend time canvassing whether to do them as public-private partnerships. But if they wanted to, for reasons of their choosing, municipalities certainly could. We have not given any direction whatsoever on that subject.

G. Gentner: I'd like to direct my questions towards my community, Delta, which is probably within the top ten most populated areas of the province. My understanding is that the municipality has made some applications for various projects.

I have to clear something up, because the terminology has been around for some time. We hear the concept "shovel-ready." Could the minister explain to me: what is shovel-ready?

Hon. K. Krueger: I think when people use that term, they mean a project that is already through its planning stages and budgeting, and the community is actually ready to start construction.

I don't know if the member specifically asked, but the community of Delta's share is $1,922,102.

G. Gentner: That was $1.922 million. So $183 million and less than $2 million for Delta.

I know Delta made an application for a new sewer line, a trunk line, to serve all of south Delta. It has a capacity, I believe, for 50,000 people, and it is by all definitions shovel-ready. The shovels are moving as we speak. How much money did Delta receive for this project?

Hon. K. Krueger: Applications for infrastructure money for large projects such as that come through the Building Canada fund, which these supplemental estimates are not involved with at all. That's a separate matter.

We don't know offhand what the amount was, but we'd be happy to give the member that answer regardless. We'll correspond with him about that.

G. Gentner: So if I have it correct, the minister is saying there is no money allocated towards this project?

Hon. K. Krueger: No. What I said was the Building Canada fund is not a subject of this discussion. The $186 million we're dealing with in supplemental estimates doesn't touch on the Building Canada fund. That's a partnership with the federal government and communities. Federal government and the province work through the applications, and it just isn't something we have with us today, because it really has nothing to do with this particular allocation.

G. Gentner: The minister mentioned a new criterion here — the difference between what constitutes a large
[ Page 13842 ]
project and what constitutes a small project. Can the minister explain to us what is meant by a large project and what is the criterion to fund a small project?

[1530]

Hon. K. Krueger: The two programs we're discussing here…. Towns for Tomorrow — the maximum amount that can be granted for a project is $400,000. LocalMotion — the maximum is a million dollars. The size and scope of the project the member is describing, of course, would be far beyond that. But it would presumably be a project where the application would be to the Building Canada fund.

G. Gentner: Another shovel-ready project Delta has applied for is the Sungod expansion project. Can the minister draw some light on how we're making out with that one?

Hon. K. Krueger: We'll take a step back to try and make sure that we didn't miss something fundamental in this exchange.

Towns for Tomorrow is for communities of 15,000 population or less, which Delta isn't. Delta would certainly be able to submit applications to LocalMotion, but that doesn't sound like a LocalMotion project either. So there may be some confusion here about the different infrastructure programs. I'm not familiar with that project, but LocalMotion is about cycling trails, walking trails — those sorts of projects.

G. Gentner: The Sungod recreation expansion project is exactly that, in part. It is to provide recreation for children and families in my community. As a former chair of the parks and rec commission, you know, I was very proud of a project then that was on time and on budget, because it had been very, very successful.

The project is looking to expand the fitness area from 3,500 square feet to 7,000. They've been to various levels of governments and various agencies, and I was led to believe that they're quite hopeful that Delta would not necessarily be punished because it's over 15,000 population capacity.

So I just want to make sure, for the record: Delta will not receive any funding for a shovel-ready project such as Sungod expansion project.

Hon. K. Krueger: That is not what was said. Delta may well have an application in the process under the Building Canada fund, which is not the subject of these supplemental estimates. The 15,000 number pertains to the Towns for Tomorrow program, which I think the critic is presently explaining to the member.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

G. Gentner: Another shovel-ready project, the Delta archives, is ready to go. It needs seismic- and flood-proofing for all its records, municipal records that are very vulnerable. They've had floods there before, and it needs to be refitted. The total cost there — my understanding — is only $600,000. Can the minister explain how much grant money Delta will receive for this project?

Hon. K. Krueger: Clearly, out of the two programs that we are discussing in the supplemental estimates infrastructure programs, one — Towns for Tomorrow — doesn't pertain to a city of that size. The other one, as I just covered in the previous answer, is called LocalMotion, and it has to do with cycling paths, walking paths — not archives.

But the Building Canada infrastructure fund is a separate fund, and there may well be applications before that. We don't have those materials with us, because the Building Canada fund has nothing to do with these supplemental estimates.

[1535]

G. Gentner: The minister mentioned that, over and above these different applications, a large part of this money will be dedicated towards community safety. Delta has a project here that fits that, and that is relative to the Boundary Bay Airport. There has been discussion — my understanding — regarding this, not only with the federal…. My understanding…. I don't think it is a Canada…. It is a shared, but it's not under the construction program the minister has been referring to.

How much money will Delta receive for the securement of a fence — $2 million worth, I believe — and camera security that is supposed to be in place pre-Olympics?

Hon. K. Krueger: As we mentioned earlier, Delta is receiving $1,922,102. Our hope is that communities will use that funding for community safety issues. They make the decision.

G. Gentner: So the minister is saying that you write a blank cheque for a community like Delta for close to $2 million for community security purposes, and you don't know what you're getting out of it?

Hon. K. Krueger: It's hardly a blank cheque. It's $1,922,102 — a very specific amount. But yes, the municipalities have autonomy as to decisions that they make for allocation of these funds.

G. Gentner: So hypothetically, I'd say a community like Delta can take the $1,922,000 gift and put it towards security costs at Boundary Bay Airport?
[ Page 13843 ]

Hon. K. Krueger: We covered earlier the fact that municipalities are required to report to their citizens on how they spend these allocations. We have been providing this traffic revenue-sharing money for some years now, and they have been reporting to us. Most of them quite faithfully spend the money on community safety issues. Many spend it directly on policing.

G. Gentner: I'm sorry. I just don't understand the criteria now. You're telling me, Minister, that Delta is going to receive $1.922 million. You have no idea where that money is going. You don't know the criteria for how it's going to be awarded. Yet there could be another municipality that could be awarded $5 million for something that could be related to community safety.

How do you judge that Delta is allowed or should be worthy of $1.922 million and another community could be getting less with an even greater population? If you just sign out a cheque and not find out what the benchmarks are, what's driving the bus here?

Hon. K. Krueger: The formula is the percentage of the particular community's expenditures on policing costs of the total spent in the province, that percentage being applied to the total traffic fine revenues received.

We don't have the number with us presently, but whatever the percentage is that Delta spent on policing costs compared to the provincial total is the percentage of the total traffic fine revenues they'll receive.

G. Gentner: So does the minister think that's fair? Is the minister telling me that a municipality may spend more money in policing than another one, and the grant is awarded on the percentage of how much that community spends?

[1540]

Does the minister think that's fair — that there should be an area in the province that may not have the same policing level and therefore, if that's the formula, will receive less money per capita?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes, certainly. We are distributing these funds on the basis of expenditures that communities are making on community safety through policing expenditures.

G. Gentner: It's obvious the ministry is supporting the status quo, and frankly, we know what status quo in this province is like when it comes down to gang wars and everything else we're seeing on the street. I would think if this government was going to be proactive in how it's going to do its policing, it would certainly look at those areas in the province that need special attention, but they certainly won't get it through this type of grant.

Hon. Chair, I'm about going to wrap up here, just to give a heads-up to my colleagues that they can be willing to stand up.

Since there is no criteria of how this money is going to be spent, I'm wondering…. There is one other program here that — I don't know — doesn't seem to come under this ministry, but it's involved with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I know it's called the school community connections program. It's there to use schools in order to benefit communities at large.

One of the projects that has been bandied about in Delta is the improvement to some of the track fields in my community, which are woefully underfunded and need improvements. In fact, they were built years ago during a B.C. Summer Games — grant money.

I'm wondering if the ministry — through this $163 million, of which Delta will only receive less than $2 million — is considering putting money into our track and field facilities that need improvements.

Hon. K. Krueger: A project like that would not be in the scope of these supplemental estimates. There is a fund administered by the UBCM and, we believe, the B.C. School Trustees Association, but it's not a subject of these supplemental estimates.

G. Gentner: I'll conclude with this. I'm pleading with the minister to consider the following. Because we're now going to allocate all this money and we don't know how it's going to be spent…. With due respect, we know that there is an election coming. Hopefully, that will not play on how you're going to allocate the money, where you have yet to decide where it's going to go.

I have to tell you that when I talk about Delta, I'm talking about south Delta as well. It's a shared community. I hope you will consider looking…. There will be times between now and when you make your decision at the end of March that you will be heavily lobbied by municipalities and lobby groups — that you will give Delta a fair shake. With that, I'll pass the baton.

C. Wyse: In our discussion, and I believe this was before lunch, the minister, in talking to the House, had mentioned and talked about Spirit Squares. In the discussions in reference to Spirit Squares, I wish to have him clarify whether the funding of Spirit Squares is part of these estimates here.

[1545]

Hon. K. Krueger: The budget for the Spirit Squares program has been fully depleted by the applications that were received. But there is nothing that would prevent a municipality that's constructing a Spirit Square, because of a successful application, from using funds from this allocation we're talking about today to pay their share.
[ Page 13844 ]

If there are communities that want to do something like a Spirit Square that didn't get an application in on time or weren't successful, there's nothing that prevents them from making an application under the Towns for Tomorrow program, if their community is under 15,000 in population.

C. Wyse: The Spirit Squares were originally funded under the 2010 Legacies Now funding?

Hon. K. Krueger: Once again, this is really outside the scope of what we're debating here today, but they were actually funded through the Ministry of Community Development as a unique infrastructure program with a specific budget that has been used.

C. Wyse: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Sorry about that. Sometimes thinking and being on your feet at the same time is a bit of a challenge for me too.

How much of the $30 million, then, would be allocated to the Spirit Squares?

Hon. K. Krueger: The $30 million that is a line item for Towns for Tomorrow is a separate matter from the Spirit Squares program. That was a $20 million budget, and the province's funding from that has all been allocated. But the funding that we were talking about earlier — the small community grants, the traffic fine revenues and so on…. Communities are receiving their share of that, and they may well use some of that money to pay their portion of Spirit Square projects.

C. Wyse: In the note that I have in front of me, I have Towns for Tomorrow, and I have a sum of money that's allocated to it of $30 million. It's included in this legislation. So what are the criteria, then, for these applications?

Hon. K. Krueger: The Towns for Tomorrow program was created by the Premier to help communities, initially for under 5,000 population and later expanded to 15,000 population. Communities of that size, particularly the first group, often found themselves unable to afford to participate in infrastructure projects brought on by the senior governments. So the Premier wished to make it easier for them and created Towns for Tomorrow, where they can receive 80 percent funding by the provincial government.

As I mentioned earlier, even though the Spirit Square budget is spent, if a town had as its first priority a square of some kind that it wanted to build, they could apply and qualify for up to a $400,000 grant, which would be a maximum of 80 percent of the actual cost of the project. We'll be doing another intake of applications. The applications that we have presently before us total $37 million.

C. Wyse: The issue, as I see it, is that we're now trying to establish the criteria that are used for the disbursement of $186 million. We're attempting to find out who is going to receive it and what the criteria are going to be for them to receive it. It would be interesting to know that, because we have seen that this is a very unusual new sum of money that has been dropped on the scene just before an election.

[1550]

We're trying to determine that all British Columbians everywhere in the province are going to have fair and reasonable access to those funds — that this simply isn't going to be an ability to throw funds off the back of a truck on the communities that the Premier has determined would be advantageous to receive them.

We're attempting to determine that there is a set criteria that is applied fairly across the whole province so that this does not come into play, so that all the communities here in the province have fair access to those funds. I understand the process — that it's 80-20. I understand that it's set up to support communities and their population size. Now what I'm attempting to determine is: what are the criteria that are used, amongst the applications that have been received, to determine who gets the bucks?

Hon. K. Krueger: All of these funding sources for municipalities have been in place for quite some time. They've been in the public domain. Towns have been applying under these infrastructure programs for years now.

We just went through, with the member from Delta, the traffic fine revenue-sharing formula. So that's on the record for the member, if he'd like to read it later. The small communities grants — our government decided to double what they had been. The amount that each community receives is determined by a formula that's set out in regulation and on a per-capita basis.

LocalMotion and Towns for Tomorrow are infrastructure funds that individual communities apply to, and we've talked about those numbers. Trees for Tomorrow is an infrastructure program meant to add four million trees to municipal landscapes. That's included in these numbers — a portion of it.

We've talked thoroughly about the carbon tax revenues and rebates to municipalities. So it's all on the record and has been in the public domain for a long time.

C. Wyse: What the minister is not telling the House is what criteria are being used to assign the funds to the specific communities that in actual fact are chosen. The minister clearly has told the House that they were oversubscribed in applications for the amount of funds that were available.

Right now the minister has not explained what rationale was used to say who got it and who didn't get it. That's what my question is. Not why the fund was set up, not how it was set up, but what is the rationale used to determine who won and who lost?

[1555]
[ Page 13845 ]

Hon. K. Krueger: We actually have covered this ground, but we'd be happy to do it again. I just talked about the traffic fine revenue-sharing formula, the small community grants formula. There are no losers. Everybody wins under those programs. All the communities and the regional districts get a share. Again, I just went over the formula. No losers.

The Towns for Tomorrow program. We've covered very few limitations on a municipality. The limit is a maximum of $400,000. The limit is 80 percent of a project. We believe that we're in the happy position of being able to fund most, if not all, of the existing applications. Communities know that they are free to apply once a year, and there will be more funds available in future.

The LocalMotion infrastructure fund. We'll happily send the member the criteria for that. It's very public. All the communities have it. They're welcome to apply. In that case, we've got $26 million in outstanding applications and only $10 million left in the budget. But as we covered with one of the member's colleagues earlier, the deadline for making those decisions is March 16.

C. Wyse: My questions have been relatively specific — at least, they have been in my mind — on the programs for Towns for Tomorrow and attempting to determine how decisions were made. Clearly, we're going into an election. Clearly, we have a supplementary estimates bill that is in front of us for $186 million. Surely British Columbians are entitled to know what rationale is being used to disburse these funds.

As the minister has pointed out, each of these particular programs has got different criteria that cover them. To mix them all up as though they're in one grab-bag doesn't shine any more light upon understanding the process that is used. We're attempting to determine here that there's a fairness of opportunity that is available.

British Columbians are entitled to know that the funds that we're talking about spending are in actual fact equally available across the board, independently evaluated on their merit, and that decisions are made in that fashion, separate from an election, separate from attempting to have influence on good-news announcements each and every day that have been offered by members opposite. "Come back every day. We'll have more good news to give you."

Now, when a bill is brought in saying, "Give us $186 million. Make it available," and they're not willing to explain how it will be disbursed, it leaves that challenge open here. So once more to the minister: who makes the decision upon who receives funds from the Towns for Tomorrow funding?

[1600]

Hon. K. Krueger: Here are the evaluation criteria for Towns for Tomorrow, which is administered by Community Development staff. As identified in the program guide, which is available to municipalities and local governments, project evaluation criteria are focused on the principles of sustainability. The agreed-upon evaluation criteria for the 2009 round are as follows.

First, contribution towards community greenhouse gas emission reductions — 25 percent of the budget is allocated to such projects. Second, public and environmental health benefits — 25 percent there. Third, extent to which the community is advancing the ActNow B.C. principle of being more physically active, and building seniors-friendly and disability-friendly communities.

Those are the considerations that the staff use. Projects have been assessed on how they meet these criteria and given a high, medium or low ranking.

C. Wyse: I do wish to acknowledge that they've narrowed down…. I appreciate the answer, and it may be my difficulty and not the minister's. But I now understand who is doing the evaluation and the criteria around it. How is this information made available for these supplementary grants to local government to apply for them?

Hon. K. Krueger: The program was publicly announced, and applications can be made on line. They're available to all local governments of those sizes of population.

C. Wyse: I believe I heard the minister say that it had been publicly announced. I was given the supplementary estimates today. So I guess I've missed the public announcement that these funds were going to be there. I would ask the minister to help clear that up for me.

I have just been given the figures that deal with the increase for the Towns for Tomorrow, and if I understood the information I've been given, it was oversubscribed. In essence, we were broke for handing out the funds.

So how does this information get out? There seems to me to be a contradiction that I just got the stuff today.

Hon. K. Krueger: The member was specifically asking about Towns for Tomorrow, and that fund is not oversubscribed. That isn't what I was talking about.

It was in the LocalMotion infrastructure program that the remaining amount is oversubscribed. When I said this was publicly announced, it was at the end of 2006, I believe, that the first announcement was made. We have added funds to the Towns for Tomorrow program since then. That's been very public.

We also increased the size of communities that qualify — up to 15,000 — although it's a slightly different funding formula.

[1605]

They can only receive 75 percent from the fund, where the under-5,000 communities can receive 80 percent. We also added regional districts and made a commitment to decisions within 60 days of the application closing date.
[ Page 13846 ]

When I said that it was all publicly announced, that started in 2006, and there have been public announcements along the way as the program has been expanded. So these supplemental estimates aren't creating a new program. They are making the money available to communities right now because we have the funds, and we have more funds than we expect to have next year and the year after that.

C. Wyse: It is easy, in my judgment, to take the detractor here and go down — that we've got more funds this year than we have the upcoming two years. It's one of the points that have been made on numerous occasions. This sudden increase of funds is not sustained over the projected budgets for the next two years. We've established quite clearly that there is a connection between these funds becoming available in 2009, coinciding with the election that is upcoming. I think those aspects have been established, and I don't want to go down that road.

What I do believe that I have been given is that the minister has established that within 60 days, there will be a response and a decision made for these new funds for Towns of Tomorrow. Is that accurate?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes, the commitment is that when the application date closes, because there's a deadline by which communities apply, and you have to make sure everybody who has applied by that date is considered…. Once that date passes, it's 60 days until decisions are given to everybody on their applications.

I'd like to remind the member that our intent here is certainty for communities and stability and helping them create jobs within their municipalities. We want people to be employed. We want to accelerate our infrastructure spending in order that people can be employed in their communities and remain in their communities.

Some of the opposition's line of questioning today…. It's almost as if people are living in a bubble on the other side of the House. We are in the grip worldwide of a tremendous economic problem. We are one of the last jurisdictions to feel the effects of it. To us, it is such a serious matter that we intend to go into deficit against all our wishes for the next two years….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: The member from Ladysmith is barking away in the background. I think his constituents would be ashamed of the way that he and some of his colleagues are carrying on.

Point of Order

J. Kwan: Point of order. The minister used an inappropriate and unparliamentary term in referencing the members on this side of the House when they speak, and I ask the minister to retract that unconditionally. He called members on this side of the House when they speak — that they were barking…. I ask the minister to withdraw that and apologize to the members in this House. I find it extremely offensive.

Hon. K. Krueger: If anyone took offence at the use of the term, it is unconditionally withdrawn.

Debate Continued

Hon. K. Krueger: The point is that we're trying to do what is good for communities, what is good for British Columbians — add security in a time of global insecurity. Give certainty to them where they have many questions. Ensure that there is stability for British Columbian communities. That's what this is all about. The $186 million will be in the bank accounts of communities who have decisions to make about things that are important to them.

[1610]

C. Wyse: When we talk about security and stability being put into communities, it really does open up a very wide and broad aspect of it. The minister comes from a community that has a significant portion of its people who make their living in the forest industry, who make their employment in agriculture and in mining.

We're talking here about literally thousands of people becoming unemployed. We're talking about the security of the communities. We're talking about the people that make up the communities. To have it tied to a program of Towns for Tomorrow or Trees for Tomorrow is a huge jump. It's a huge jump in credibility.

What I'm attempting to do here is simply ensure, with the very meagre sums that are being provided to address the catastrophic outfall upon individuals and communities at this period of time, that there's fairness in accessibility to those meagre sums of money so that everyone in the province is getting a fair shot at some supplementary figures that are put on top of a budget that failed horribly in addressing those things. To put it into that context has narrowed it to the point that I have to respond to it.

I will be coming back, and I will be returning to the program specifically. But the minister has opened that door about this providing stability — to provide stability in an area that has been devastated. That's British Columbia completely, not just rural British Columbia but all B.C. — and a budget that never addressed that, to have a supplementary budget brought in and to put it into that context and have the minister bring forward the statement that this is what it's about.

There is a job to be done, and it's not the job that the minister has done once before, which is to roll things out in a hurry. I want to get some good news out there
[ Page 13847 ]
quickly, when nobody has any idea — least of all members opposite — about the effect of what is being done.

It is clearly the responsibility of this House on both sides to ensure that there is equitability provided for all British Columbians and even more so at the time at which there's an election coming up — to ensure that it is not just the ridings that the government in their wisdom determines where these funds should go.

There will be other funds that we're looking at here in this supplementary bill, which likewise will open that door to this type of discussion if that's where the minister wishes to take it.

[1615]

Now I would like to return to the business we have at hand, which is to deal with equitability and fairness for the funds that are raised for all British Columbians in such a manner. My question is to the minister. For the local transportation projects, when is the closing date for those applications?

Hon. K. Krueger: It's odd that the member opposite would refer to $186 million as meagre. By the last year of the NDP's miserable ten years of government, the grand total of transfers to municipalities in unconditional grants was $36 million. We're talking about a one-time allocation of $186 million, more than five times the total that the NDP provided to all the municipalities in the province — so scarcely meagre.

To answer the member's question, which has been answered repeatedly, we have a deadline of March 16 to decide on applications that had to come in by the deadline of January 16.

C. Wyse: My thickness, and I extend my apologies. I believe I heard March 16, and I thought I heard January 16. Could the minister just help me understand that a little better, please?

Hon. K. Krueger: That's correct. Applications had to be received by January 16. Decisions have to be made and conveyed by March 16.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the minister's time with me to work through this. So if it was January 16 with a set date for March 16, then why were these figures not in the regular budget?

Hon. K. Krueger: The allocation for Towns for Tomorrow was increased during the fiscal year. It was announced at the UBCM convention in the fall of 2008. That's why we need to allow for that increase in supplemental estimates.

C. Wyse: I likely have ended up in an area that I don't have the training to go into with the accounting-ese. It does still leave with me, though, the impression that if this was all known back at the middle of January — and I guess not understanding all the rules and everything — that there's a reason why it's here in the supplementary estimates. I will accept that from the minister, though I will just state that I remain confused. I will seek clarification on the accountant-ese aspect of it and will take the minister's explanation on the face that he's given to me.

With that, I have one of my other colleagues that has some questions here on the supplementary aspect. So if I may, I would like to refer it to my colleague.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to join the debate on supplementary estimates. For the benefit of our listeners, supplementary estimates are moneys that the government is asking to spend in this fiscal year that were not in the budget for this fiscal year.

[1620]

Last week this government introduced a bill to make deficit budgets legal in British Columbia. Part of that legislation also outlawed the use of supplementary estimates. Can the minister tell me tell me: why did the government introduce legislation to outlaw supplementary estimates?

Hon. K. Krueger: We're debating a supplementary estimate for $186 million, the Ministry of Community Development. I don't think the questions relevant to matters that were debated last week are relevant to this debate.

The Chair: Member, if you would keep your questions on this particular estimate, please.

M. Sather: It's clear that this minister and this government don't want to address it, which is obviously a great embarrassment. They passed a law saying that what we're doing today is not going to be legal next year. The question obviously is: why is it legal today? Why is it okay to be doing what we're doing now, today, but next year it's not okay? It's clearly an indefensible position that this government has taken and leads to a conclusion….

The Chair: Order, Member. I think those comments are clearly outside the scope of this debate. I wonder if you could get yourself on track, please.

M. Sather: Well, the substance in the problem that we're dealing with is to try to get answers from this government and this minister relevant to these supplementary estimates. I think the clear conclusion that members on this side have come to — and there have been a number of questions — is that this has been a hastily concocted exercise. So I'd like to ask the minister: when did the government decide to use supplementary estimates for this year?
[ Page 13848 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: This is clearly outside of the scope of this particular estimate vote that is being debated, which is specific to the Ministry of Community Development, but I will oblige the member with the question. We made it quite clear last fall that we were going to be tabling supplemental estimates before the House.

The Chair: Member continues, and on Vote 22, please.

M. Sather: Certainly, Madam Chair.

Okay, on Vote 22. Certainly germane to this vote is the genesis of it, which the Minister of Finance said was last fall, which belies the necessity to be doing a supplemental estimates exercise. It should have been in the regular budget, wasn't and next year, miraculously, will be illegal.

Now, I'd like to ask the minister with regard to my communities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Let's take one at a time, if you like. How much of this $186 million has been allocated to Maple Ridge?

Hon. K. Krueger: Of the traffic fine revenue-sharing, Maple Ridge will receive $1,005,312.

M. Sather: So $1.005 million or thereabouts, I believe, is what the minister said for traffic fine revenue. Were there any other of these grants or moneys that Maple Ridge was eligible for?

Hon. K. Krueger: The community of Maple Ridge is eligible to apply for grants under the LocalMotion infrastructure program, also under the Trees for Tomorrow program, and will receive its share of the carbon tax rebate.

[1625]

M. Sather: Can the minister tell me: of this $1 million-plus that's been allocated to Maple Ridge, has the municipality given the minister or the ministry the information as to what projects they're doing?

Hon. K. Krueger: We've covered this ground repeatedly in this debate. The grants are provided to the local governments. The local governments make their decision about how they're going to spend the money.

It is hoped that there will be heavy emphasis on community safety. Many of the communities use the funds for policing. Because we are making this large one-time grant upfront, working through the Union of B.C. Municipalities on a protocol and a memorandum of understanding, we're going to ask for a plan from each community about what they intend to do and for public reporting to the citizens of that community.

M. Sather: Well, it is really quite astounding that the minister keeps saying: "We hope that this money will be used for community safety." We know there's a great need for community safety, particularly in the Lower Mainland right now, which this government says they're aware of, which they're not putting money into. Now it's a hope that some of this money will be spent on community safety.

I'm sure the minister must understand why we have concerns about this program, this $186 million. There are no real guidelines. There's a hope that it'll be used for community safety. There's some reporting by the municipality to their citizens but no reporting that I understand. The minister has mentioned this before — that they will report to their citizens, but no reporting back to this body that's giving out the money.

So where is the responsibility of the government with $186 million, which I agree with the minister is no trifling sum? Where is the responsibility of this government and this body that wants us to approve $186 million, no strings attached?

Hon. K. Krueger: It seems that the member is advocating that government place more constraints around the traffic fine revenue-sharing program — impose more conditions. We'll be happy to discuss that with Maple Ridge if he wants us to.

The fact is that we respect local governments. We believe that they are tremendously accountable to the people who elect them.

One of my city councillors has a barbershop on Victoria Street, the main street through downtown Kamloops. Everybody knows where to find him if they want to hold him accountable for any of his decisions. And they are accountable.

This is a sum that they do have discretion with, and we think that's a good thing. Obviously, the member and other members of his caucus who have spoken earlier wouldn't do things that way.

Right now we get to decide if we want to have a working relationship with the federal government, with the local governments, and we do have a relationship where we feel quite at ease allowing local governments to make these decisions. But the member obviously doesn't, and we will discuss that with Maple Ridge.

M. Sather: Clearly, when local governments spend money, they're responsible to their citizens for how they spend it. But we in this House are responsible for how we give the money out, and that's where I don't see any responsibility being taken by this government. It's very loosey-goosey, and it's completely understandable why members on this side of the House see this as very much spending related to the election on May 12.

I mean, what kind of favourites are going to be played? It's very, very loosey-goosey, which I'm sure is what the government wants — to have a lot of flexibility to be able to give this money to whomever they want, when they want.

[1630]
[ Page 13849 ]

I'd also like to ask the minister about Pitt Meadows and what moneys from this program, this $186 million, have been allocated to Pitt Meadows.

Hon. K. Krueger: The allocation to Pitt Meadows includes not only traffic fine revenue-sharing but a share of the small community grants. Together, they total $506,734.

Again, to call it loosey-goosey when a provincial government working with local governments believes and trusts that they're going to use the money appropriately…. They do report to provincial government each year what they spent the traffic fine revenue share that they received on. We said earlier in this debate that the fact is that they generally do use it on community safety issues. But sometimes communities have different priorities, and for their own very good reasons. Some of the money may be used for other purposes.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

The fact is that we certainly believe in conveying grants to local governments. I gather the member didn't hear this earlier, but his government, the NDP government of the '90s, had reduced the grants to local governments to $36 million by the end of the dark decade of the '90s, having cut $105 million. And two of the members of his current caucus were the ministers responsible for their previous iterations of this ministry when some of the substantial cuts took place.

Absolutely, we believe in the ability of local governments to make responsible decisions in an autonomous way. We have added almost $2 billion in grants in the somewhat over seven years of being government of British Columbia, in addition to the normal granting process. Certainly, the proof's in the pudding. And actually, an awful lot of good has happened as a result of those transfers.

But that's quite a difference, from $36 million a year to supplemental estimates here of $186 million — programs that are ongoing. None of these programs are brand-new. They've been around, some of them, for years. Some of them, we've certainly increased the funding available. We've talked about all of those details already.

But it's a very different philosophy between that side of the House and this side of the House — no question about it. I think everyone sees that.

M. Sather: Well, the minister talks about trust, and trust with municipalities. But we don't trust a government who is engaging in a process today that after March 31 is illegal. So I don't know how the minister can talk about trust.

Of that $506,000, then, that Pitt Meadows is receiving…. I know the number one issue for Pitt Meadows is the interchange, the very badly needed interchange, on the Lougheed Highway at Harris Road. That has been conveyed to the government a number of times — that that's their number one priority. In order to make the Pitt River Bridge and the Golden Ears bridge actually be functional, we need that interchange. Is any of that money going towards that project?

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is no. This funding, the supplemental estimates we're debating, doesn't have relevance to projects like that.

The municipality has probably applied to the Building Canada fund, which provides for much larger grants than any of the programs that we're talking about here — co-funded by the federal, provincial and local governments for major highway infrastructure projects like the one the member describes.

[1635]

M. Sather: Well, can the minister explain why they've…? I understand that these programs are for smaller endeavours. But when a community — and the minister is always talking about how they want to help communities — says that this is our number one project….

I recall, if I understood the minister right when he was speaking to the member for Delta North about another project, that he said that it's a federal infrastructure project but that the municipality could use some of the money they're receiving through the supplementary estimates — $186 million for that project.

My question to the minister is: why limit the municipality? Obviously, the funding is much, much greater, and the need is much, much greater than half a million dollars, but why limit the ability of the municipality to put that money aside for their number one project?

Hon. K. Krueger: We've been over and over that answer today. I'd encourage the member to read the Hansard, and I think it will be clear to him. It's not that a project like that can't be funded. The answer is: that's a fund that has nothing to do with what we are debating here today.

The three actual infrastructure programs that this matter touches on are Trees for Tomorrow, Towns for Tomorrow and LocalMotion, none of which are germane to the particular project.

I want to assure the member that not only would an application be welcome under the Building Canada fund, which we partner with the federal government on, but there's probably one there already. It's probably coming through the process. I don't know that. Those aren't the materials we have today, because that fund has nothing to do with the supplementary estimates of today.

C. Wyse: I just wish to confirm for the record, because I don't recall that I did ask of the minister, that he will provide for me a list of the successful applicants for the
[ Page 13850 ]
Towns for Tomorrow portion of the supplementary estimates, including a list of those unsuccessful applicants.

Hon. K. Krueger: We will provide that list.

C. Wyse: Just to confirm that we have a time frame around it, when will he anticipate that that list would be provided, relative to when the decision is made?

Hon. K. Krueger: We answered that specific question less than 20 minutes ago. As soon as possible after March 31.

C. Wyse: The minister, I'm sure, will appreciate that I wish to establish that it applies to all the programs that we're going through, because the questions have been for specific programs, as we've discussed.

The minister also has made statements that he's anticipating that there will be a series of flurries of announcements with projects. Some of them, I will assume, are associated with this supplementary $186 million.

Would the minister please outline how he intends to make these public announcements for the successful applicants for the supplementary estimates?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes. The intent is to have important public infrastructure under construction as quickly as possible, employ as many people as we can under these programs in this time when many people are worried about their family income and keeping skilled workers in their communities.

So we are moving as quickly as we can to make decisions, get things in place in order that we can commit to projects in different communities. As soon as those decisions are made, we intend to come up with a communications plan and make it happen as fast as we can.

[1640]

That may be a letter to the mayors and councils of the different municipalities. It will doubtless be accompanied by news releases, and I expect to be making a number of those announcements personally.

C. Wyse: I guess the minister recently had a huge public announcement, of which there was great fanfare made, with the handing out of cheques to various communities.

What I'm looking for from the minister, in that type of fanfare for announcements…. Is he going to ensure that the local MLAs are likewise involved with that type of fanfare for the announcements being made?

Hon. K. Krueger: I'm not sure what announcement the member is referring to, and neither are the staff who are with me. He may be referring to the Building Canada announcement that Stockwell Day, the federal minister; my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure; and I made in this building this week.

We think it's really good for the economy of British Columbia to make sure that everybody knows that governments are collaborating at all levels. Governments are working hard to expedite these infrastructure construction projects. Governments share zeal to create jobs and keep people working in British Columbia, while building things that have been applied for and are important to local communities.

We will make announcements in the usual ways. I can't tie my calendar to other MLAs' calendars.

C. Wyse: I think that people in British Columbia wouldn't have the suspicion that the intent of this $186 million for the supplementary estimates is meant to buy their votes. If that, in actual fact, is true, then when the announcements are made, in fairness of all impartiality, would an invitation be extended to the local MLA to also attend those public announcements?

Hon. K. Krueger: I'm not hearing suspicion from the public. I'm not hearing suspicion from local governments or councils. I'm hearing enthusiasm. I'm hearing satisfaction that they've got governments that can and do work together.

Very often I am with other members, including opposition members, at events. But I can't make specific commitments about being able to match my calendar to other MLAs' — government or opposition.

C. Wyse: All I'm asking is that an invitation be extended in a timely fashion so that if any of the 79 members of this House are available, they likewise would have the opportunity to attend.

The minister is quite right. I know there have been many announcements that have been made — whether they've been with these supplementary estimates for in the future, or the extension of how they have come about — that the invitations have not been extended to the MLAs. Yet there have been any number of people that have turned up on the podium to be around the announcements.

[1645]

Part of my question was to establish the credibility of these supplementary estimates that stick out all by themselves as a huge bump-up in discretionary funds for allocations within a very few short days of the provincial election. That disbursal of funds is something that is done on behalf of the government of British Columbia, which includes members of all sides of the House.

So the minister, in my judgment, has been relatively narrow in what he has been hearing. What we are attempting to establish here is the depoliticization of public funds at a highly political time, when all communities in the province are suffering huge economic
[ Page 13851 ]
instability, huge community upset, huge personal challenges and trauma. The least that is required in here is political opportunism.

So once more, what I'm requesting of the minister is not a commitment for him to coordinate his calendar with 79 members here in the Legislature. What I'm requesting of the minister is a commitment from him, on behalf of his government and the Premier, that there will be due opportunity provided for all members of the House to attend these types of announcements that are associated with the supplementary estimate funds that are contained in today's debate.

Hon. K. Krueger: This is such a hilarious illustration of something this opposition does all the time: stand up and speak against things, rail against them and say they're a bad idea. They're against the Olympics. They're against the Vancouver Convention Centre. They're against the RAV line.

They're against pretty much all $14 billion worth of infrastructure construction that we have coming down the pipe. But oh yeah, if it comes to an announcement, if it comes to a ribbon cutting, then they want to be Johnnies-on-the-spot.

I expect that we'll be moving very rapidly at the time that these decisions are made. We've gone over and over the fact that we've got to have decisions made by March 16. We want to have people working on those projects as quickly as they can get at them, and I'll make no such commitment to the member.

C. Wyse: I actually appreciate the frankness and the honesty of the minister in his response, and I do wish to acknowledge that. I do wish to acknowledge that he has clearly stated that there will not be invitations made available for such announcements. That, in actual fact, has been the practice that has been noticed by quite a large number of people right across British Columbia for quite a period of time.

It takes a very brave minister to stand up here in front of all British Columbians and say: "You're right, hon. Member. It really does matter on which side of the House you sit to be invited to the party, to be provided with that opportunity." That takes a very brave, courageous member of this House to make that statement. I admire that.

I'm sure that the people of British Columbia have elected 79 people to do their business diligently, honestly and fairly, to try and ensure that the instability that exists in their communities is being dealt with. It is indeed a very brave member of this House to stand up and confirm that not everybody's invited to the party.

[1650]

We know that. We have seen budgets that do not look after those people that cannot look after themselves. We have seen budget upon budget that in actual fact have looked after the large corporations, have looked after the very wealthy. They have abandoned people on the streets. They have abandoned people with mental illness. They abandoned people with addictions.

They are absolutely right. It is indeed a very brave minister who has confirmed that here in British Columbia, underneath the Campbell government, not everybody is invited to the party, not everybody gets an invitation, not everybody is welcome, not everybody is being looked after. That indeed is a brave, brave minister, and I wish to acknowledge his braveness.

With that, I wish to turn over to my colleague, who has some questions of the minister.

C. Trevena: Like some of my colleagues, I just wanted to get an idea of the division of the $186 million that is spelled out here. I wondered how much will be going to Campbell River.

Hon. K. Krueger: The share of traffic fine revenue flowing to Campbell River will be $493,238. Campbell River may well have applications against the LocalMotion and Towns for Tomorrow funds. Those, as we've covered previously, are working through the process with a self-imposed deadline, by government, of having decisions to the communities by March 16. We don't have those yet.

C. Trevena: I wondered if the minister could give me, actually, the breakdown for the other communities in my constituency — so it would be Port Alice, Port Hardy, Port McNeill — and if there are any specifically for regional districts. We've got Strathcona and Mount Waddington regional districts — and Tahsis as well.

Hon. K. Krueger: It does make it convenient that most of those start with the word "port," because they're almost consecutive. Port Alice, $400,482 in small community grants. Port Hardy, $697,997. Port McNeill, $604,537. These are all small community grants. I've mentioned — I'm not sure if the member heard at the time — that we've doubled the allocations of small community grants. That is, we've committed to double, and we'll complete the doubling process this year. Tahsis's share will be $418,441.

If the member wouldn't mind, I need the regional districts read to me again.

C. Trevena: I have a couple of other communities — Zeballos and Sayward as communities — and regional districts of Strathcona and Mount Waddington and the village of Alert Bay.

[1655]

Hon. K. Krueger: The village of Alert Bay will receive assured funding of $506,406. Sayward, $403,976. Zeballos, $446,231. Mount Waddington regional district,
[ Page 13852 ]
$266,856. Strathcona regional district, $247,330. The member will let me know if I missed any, I'm sure.

C. Trevena: You covered my constituency. Thank you very much for that.

I would like to just pick up on the reason for these supplementary estimates. Under the Ministry of Community Development this money, the $186 million, is for "strategic investments in communities to encourage economic growth and create jobs to help offset the effects of the current economic uncertainty and to provide local governments with greater flexibility to address immediate needs, including community safety."

I just wanted to ask how flexible the minister is with this. I notice that Campbell River gets $493,000. It is a community that has now lost most of its heavy industry. I'm sure the minister is well aware that the Catalyst pulp mill is down, at least now until the end of March, and there are questions about whether it's going to start up again.

So in light of the raison d'être of these supplementary estimates — they're supposed to help out communities in need — I wondered how the minister was going to address the amount going to Campbell River and the real need of that community.

Hon. K. Krueger: It's interesting, because the member's colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows was just rebuking me for this. But the fact is that these small community grants will be spent at the discretion and on the issues of choice of the local governments.

That member said that it was too loosey-goosey and clearly felt that we should have a lot more conditions on where the money went. We think that local governments are responsible. They've been entrusted by their electorate. They get to decide, and we are not directive about how they use this money.

C. Trevena: I was wondering whether there is actually going to be any more money, seeing as this is a community that is clearly going to be facing a number of problems as we go forward. It has lost its heavy industry.

The TimberWest mill closed last year. We've now got the kraft mill closed. Catalyst last year. We've now got the complete shutdown of the Catalyst and the Elk Falls mills. So I'm wondering if there is any more money.

I came with the mayor of Campbell River to see the minister's predecessor and talk about these issues. So I'm really quite disappointed to see the limited amount of funding that is there, although obviously, with the discretionary spending, that is helpful. But I'm distressed to see it is only $493,000.

[1700]

Hon. K. Krueger: I'll point out to the member that we're talking about a specific allocation of money in this year's budget, the '08-09 budget, not to be confused with the budget for 2009-10. We have ongoing programs that we'll certainly be seeking to help that community with. We have community transition staff. We have the rural secretariat. We have various programs, but those subjects are for discussion another day.

Also, Campbell River and other communities qualify for the existing infrastructure funds, and this allocation does deal with Towns for Tomorrow and LocalMotion. A number of those small communities that would certainly qualify for Towns for Tomorrow probably have applications in to us — all of those communities that qualify under LocalMotion for applications — and those are the decisions that we have committed to make by March 16.

There is substantial assistance available to communities and to workers — the community development trust and so on — but those matters are outside the scope of this supplemental estimates debate.

C. Trevena: I'm well aware that this is supplementary estimates. It's not the budget, and this is one of the points of contention that this side of the House has. It is the supplementary estimates of almost a billion dollars here that we're dealing with this afternoon. This $186 million that's going to be handed out very quickly, just before the election, as my colleague from Cariboo South said.

That being said, it says very clearly in the terms of reference for the Ministry of Community Development that it's "to encourage economic growth and create jobs to help offset the effects of current economic uncertainty." So I'm wanting to ask the minister how he expects this half-million dollars to help Campbell River — it's had a major blow to its economy — and if there is any further discretion that the minister can show in assisting the community through these supplementary estimates.

Hon. K. Krueger: Certainly, whatever applications these communities have in the various infrastructure programs, including Building Canada — which, again, is not part of the supplemental estimates — those will be actively considered. These communities will get their share of the carbon tax rebate.

It's amazing to me that the members opposite speak so negatively about this allocation. I know that it is very good news in the eyes of local governments and their umbrella organization, the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Members who feel that strongly that the funds should be withheld from communities until the summer, I guess, should vote against it, because we don't want to place anyone in a moral dilemma.

The member is shaking her head, but just a moment ago she was suggesting that it would be more appropriate that these funds be held until after the election. She would be welcome to have those councils write us to that effect, but I'd be really surprised if any of them wanted to.
[ Page 13853 ]

C. Trevena: I think it's very interesting that the minister is trying to interpret my body language, and I don't think it's particularly helpful when we're having a discussion about very important issues that really impact many, many people, particularly since I'm working on the minister's own terms of reference for the allocations of the money, which is "to encourage economic growth and create jobs to help offset the effects in the current economic uncertainty."

What's more uncertain than hearing this week that the mill is down for at least a month and that we don't know when it's going to be coming back? Clearly, the minister isn't going to be flexible, and he's not going to be offering any additional help, unless it's required, under this immediate term.

I just wanted to know, as a final question, what conditions there are for the spending of this money by the local authorities. Do they have any parameters, or can they just spend it on any project they wish? If that's so, can they maybe just use it to offset their tax rate, or do you have any guidelines on how that money should be spent?

[1705]

Hon. K. Krueger: If the member has time after we're done this debate…. Those questions have been very thoroughly canvassed already. I'll gladly go over them quickly again, but I have respect for the time of the House.

I think I just answered the question about what conditions. These small community grants are unconditional grants. They are derived by a formula that applies to all small communities, a per-capita formula, and there are no conditions. We believe that the local governments will be responsible with the money. We require them to give us a plan of what they intend to do with it and to report to their constituents on what they did do with it.

When it comes to traffic fine revenues, we would like to see the money spent on community safety priorities. I think that answers the member's question.

But with respect, I want to admonish the opposition. You really can't have it both ways. You can't say, "You shouldn't do this," and then say: "But you're not giving us enough." I mean, that just doesn't make sense.

We're doing it for all the reasons that we've stated. We want to add stability. We want communities to know what they have in their bank account. We want them to be able to make important decisions, to fund important priorities. Those are all matters of record.

C. Wyse: I can't help but notice that we've been debating here for quite a long period of time, and the minister has not had any opportunity for any type of a break. I just want to extend that recognition to my colleague across the floor — that I have that observation. I could well understand….

What I would also like to do is follow up so that the minister knows, in looking at the bill that is here, the questions in my mind from where I'm sitting. I basically have dealt with the carbon tax rebate. I still have got a very large number of questions left around those other programs that are contained.

But I have another colleague of mine that would like to talk with the minister. He has some concerns. So if that works for the minister, then I'm going to ask my colleague here to take over.

D. Routley: I'd like to ask the minister first off: of the $186 million, how much will be allocated for communities in my constituency? That would be the town of Lake Cowichan; the town of Duncan; the municipality of North Cowichan; the town of Chemainus, included in North Cowichan; the town of Crofton, included in North Cowichan; the town of Ladysmith; and the Cedar-Ladysmith area.

[1710]

Hon. K. Krueger: The community of Duncan has both a small community grant and traffic fine revenue-sharing. It totals of $701,891. The town of Ladysmith, again, has both programs, $654,560; Lake Cowichan, a small community grant of $584,090; North Cowichan, traffic fine revenue-sharing, $328,669; Cowichan Valley regional district, a small communities grant, $195,261. If I've missed any, maybe the member could remind me.

D. Routley: Were all of those figures that the minister just announced contained in the $186 million supplementary estimate?

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is yes.

D. Routley: In that case, as has been pointed out, supplementary estimates are meant to fill immediate needs, needs not foreseen in the previous budget and not accommodated in the next year's budget. There is a high degree of, I would say, cynicism about whether or not this represents an election ploy — bringing forward this kind of money only mere weeks or days before a provincial election.

We want to be very clear that these moneys are fairly distributed and fairly awarded, that it's crystal-clear as to how the criteria are applied and, furthermore, that members from both sides of the House are involved in the ribbon-cutting opportunities that might be afforded to the government by spending this kind of public money so close to an election.

One of the problems with all of that, with achieving those goals, would be that local governments are only just now budgeting for the coming year and are desperately now trying to put together the shovel-readiness of projects in order to qualify for both federal and provincial programs that have been announced.
[ Page 13854 ]

Several governments in our area, I think, are just in the middle of that process. In the case of North Cowichan, they have several projects that they have prioritized, and they have been communicated to me. I'd like to relate them to the minister and ask him whether they would qualify for the funding that is now being offered. This is immediate, not foreseen, and offered in order to stimulate the economy and keep people working. These projects would certainly do that.

The first is the Somenos sports field completion project. It's 95 percent design-ready. The tender documents could be produced within one month. The Duncan Junior Baseball Association is anxious to play there in 2010, so if they were to be able to do that, construction would have to start sometime this spring. They have a portion of that funding acquired through the sale of the previous Cowichan place exhibition lands, but the total of the project is $4.3 million to $6.1 million.

I'm wondering if the minister can offer North Cowichan some advice as to what program might fulfil their need and whether the minister's immediate request for funding could accommodate their immediate need for stimulus.

[1715]

Hon. K. Krueger: As we've covered quite a few times today, Towns for Tomorrow is an infrastructure program for communities up to 15,000 population, and I think that the population of North Cowichan is more than that.

LocalMotion is an infrastructure program providing for hiking and cycling trails, and so on. The Building Canada fund is outside the scope of these supplementary estimates so not relevant to today's debate. That sounds as though it's a project that the community would apply for assistance for through one of those funds designed for larger projects.

There was an allocation through the recently announced federal budget for recreational facilities, and there may well be a possibility there, but it isn't something that this allocation would pertain to.

D. Routley: The minister has stated that the reason for the supplementary estimate of $186 million is to provide stimulus, to provide employment, to keep people employed in our local communities. So it's really quite alarming to hear that projects such as this, which is on the verge of being ready for tender, wouldn't qualify for some help from the minister.

I think the local constituents will be very unhappy to hear that that the minister is not able to be flexible enough to accommodate some kind of support for that project. In fact, the local community and local government, North Cowichan municipality, seek to partner in the project. So the total cost is $4.3 million to $6.1 million.

Surely, the minister can offer some suggestion and some support in some form of partnership, which is one of the mantras of this government or at least is one of their stated themes — offer something to the municipality of North Cowichan to encourage them. This very valuable, very worthy project is ready to go and could provide employment as well as increased health outcomes for our community, all the kinds of noble aspirations the government claims. If the minister could find some flexibility and find support for this worthy project….

Hon. K. Krueger: Well, if the member has been paying any attention at all, he should know that this allocation is with regard to very specific programs — ongoing programs, all of them.

There's a Trees for Tomorrow program. This isn't a tree he's talking about. There is a LocalMotion program, which I just outlined. This doesn't sound like a hiking trail or a cycling trail. There's a Towns for Tomorrow program, and it does provide for towns of certain populations, and clearly this is not one of those smaller communities that Towns for Tomorrow was created for.

There's a carbon tax rebate, but we're not talking about carbon tax. We're talking about very specific things that have been covered in minute detail. A $4.3 million sports complex is not one of the matters that would come, obviously, with any of those programs.

There are other avenues that the community can follow. They probably already are. It's just that that particular type of project isn't a project that falls within the scope of these supplemental estimates. They are very specific things that are well understood by communities.

[1720]

I'd be very surprised if any of the communities that the member mentioned, and certainly North Cowichan, took exception to that at all, because I think it's very clear to them what we're dealing with here. If the communities in the member's constituency choose to spend their small community grants on any project at all, it's entirely up to them. They have discretion.

D. Routley: Another project prioritized by North Cowichan council is the Mays Road extension design. That is in order to provide better access to the new Cowichan Exhibition Society fairgrounds. The exhibition society is anxious, as it has events planned for July of this coming summer. Some funding for that has also been acquired through the sale of the previous Cowichan Exhibition lands.

This is also 95 percent design-complete. It is ready for tender within one month, and its total cost would be $720,000. Does the minister see any opportunity for North Cowichan to have their plans fit his allocation?

Hon. K. Krueger: The community of North Cowichan knows what the various infrastructure programs are.
[ Page 13855 ]
They can certainly apply. That sounds like a project that would fall within the Building Canada program. It doesn't fall within any of the programs that I just outlined to the member, which these supplemental estimates concern.

D. Routley: A third project prioritized by North Cowichan municipal council is the expansion of the municipal hall. That design is in progress. No funding has yet been allocated. It's ready for tender later this year. The total amount on that project is $2½ million. Is there any program that the minister can suggest that would accommodate that project in North Cowichan's priority?

The minister should remember that these are the priorities of North Cowichan, not this member. They're communicated to me in order to be communicated to the minister, in order to seek help, because the minister is the minister responsible for local government. Whether or not they're aware of what programs they should be applying through or not, they've asked me to ask the minister for suggestions.

Could the minister perhaps suggest a plan that does offer enough flexibility to accommodate the expansion plans for the municipal hall?

Hon. K. Krueger: Once again, that is not a project that would pertain to any of the matters under discussion here. Our staff will certainly work with the local government in searching for anything that is applicable, but it isn't the subject of the debate here today.

D. Routley: The fourth project communicated to me as a priority from the council of the municipality of North Cowichan is the Chemainus skate park. That could be design-finished and ready for tender within four months.

That project, for the minister's benefit, would be a total cost of $325,000. It's a very worthy project and very much needed in the Chemainus area — identified by young people as a great need for them — and accepted by the community as something they would like to see happen.

Surely, the minister can suggest some program or some opportunity in this immediate allocation of $186 million that could help the town of Chemainus with their $325,000 request.

[1725]

Hon. K. Krueger: That sounds like a project that might well qualify under the LocalMotion fund. As we've covered with the member's colleagues, those are currently under consideration if communities have applied. So if the community has applied, those decisions are going to be made by March 16.

D. Routley: What is the deadline for application?

Hon. K. Krueger: The deadline was January 16. They may well have applied, but we don't know that they have.

D. Routley: Well, as I pointed out to the minister, the local governments are just now budgeting and preparing their priorities. This immediate supplementary demand from the minister in his ministry of $186 million of public money to be spent…. This was not foreseen in the previous budget and is not a part of the upcoming budget.

With deadlines that have already passed, could the minister find flexibility enough to entertain an application for that project, since he has indicated that it could well fit within the parameters of the LocalMotion requirement?

Hon. K. Krueger: The invitation to local governments to apply for this program was in October 2008. We substantially increased the allocation for some of our programs. That's why we have to deal with receiving the House's approval for the supplementary estimates.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

This isn't a sudden development at all, and all the other allocations that we've been talking about all day are also well-understood programs discussed at the UBCM, some of them repeat applications from communities.

We actually have applications from pretty much every community in the province for one of these programs or another. I'd be surprised if North Cowichan didn't have applications in to some of these programs.

D. Routley: It's surprising, then, that these funds weren't a part of the previous budget, if the deadlines have passed so far behind yet well in advance of the time we were asked to vote on a bill that would make lawless the idea of supplementary estimates.

It's surprising that these funds weren't foreseen by the government. It's surprising that we're here today debating supplementary estimates for funds that are of immediate need, yet the deadlines have well passed us, and the immediate needs apparently can't be met. Can the minister explain why that conflict exists?

Hon. K. Krueger: That question has been asked repeatedly, answered repeatedly, and the member should read the Hansard record of the debate that has gone on all day.

D. Routley: Well, disregarding how unsatisfactory that answer is, I'll ask the minister why he should be asking this House for immediate and only now urgently required funds in the order of $186 million to be doled out to local governments for worthy projects when that was not foreseen in the previous budget.

[1730]

Why did this minister not foresee that need? And why, if it was an unforeseen need, is there not an opportun-
[ Page 13856 ]
ity for people or local governments to make application now for the funds that the minister has identified as being immediately necessary to maintain employment and stimulate local economies?

Hon. K. Krueger: Again, these questions have been dealt with all day, but I will repeat myself, and I apologize to the rest of the House for having to do so.

We're in the midst of an economic earthquake worldwide that nobody could have foreseen. It's pretty bad news everywhere. It's affected British Columbia less drastically than most places.

We have been responding to that problem as it has grown. The Premier made a number of announcements in October which are not, by and large, subjects of today's debate. We are doing everything we can to make sure that there is stability in British Columbia and in the communities of British Columbia and that we provide whatever certainty we can, including this large allocation of funds that we, because of good fiscal management, because of a good fiscal plan, have this year.

We won't have as much money next year or the year after. We've covered this over and over.

We think that confidence is a very important thing for communities and for our economy. We have the money, and we made the decision, which we've been very public about, to assist communities in this way, and they're very happy about it.

D. Routley: That's a wide-ranging answer to a narrow question, but let's address that answer.

The minister claims that nobody could have foreseen this downturn. Well, I disagree wholeheartedly with that. A great many economic forecasters saw that the housing bubble in the U.S. was due to burst and had been predicting it for months and years, in fact. We are so dependent upon the housing market in the United States that even our tree-planting rates are determined by the housing starts in the U.S.

Even the future growth of our forests is determined by the current housing-start rates in the U.S. Yet for months we saw that the housing market in the U.S. was exploding, and the government did nothing.

The minister also says that we have the money, so we're able to spend it. Well, we're here debating supplementary estimates to a budget that precedes a deficit budget. So that seems wrong as well.

Forest-dependent communities, the communities that I'm speaking about, have known of this calamity and this crisis for a couple of years now. We've been losing mills and jobs in the order of 20,000 forestry jobs in this province, and that was during that boom. But still, it was predicted, and still the minister stands and claims that the government could not possibly have foreseen it.

So it just doesn't seem right that we're asked to vote on $186 million in local project funding that's now…. The minister says: "Perhaps this member isn't aware that British Columbia is experiencing an earthquake economically." Well, yes, we're well aware of it, Mr. Minister, and in fact, it was well predicted and ignored by the government.

The government claimed that B.C. was immune to that. Only in the past few weeks has the government acknowledged that it would enter a deficit, when the entire world had been coping with deficit budgets and trying to stimulate their economies by looking for projects like these that were worthy of funding and could provide employment.

[1735]

But the minister says: "Well, no, those projects don't qualify." There's a growing cynicism in these very same communities that this is in fact a slush fund, that this is election spending. Then when the critic asks the minister: "Will the minister extend invitations to the local members of the Legislature to attend the ribbon cuttings and announcements that are sure to flow and follow in the mere days leading up to a provincial election and mere weeks….?"

What is it? I think it's 82 days until the election? It's 82 days? I think it's 54 days until the writ is dropped. So the minister expects us to believe that this is not election spending. He tells us that we're in an earthquake, so he's having to demand $186 million in supplementary funding to the previous budget.

Yet these projects that we bring forward — these are worthy; they're prioritized, not by the opposition but by the local governments we represent — don't qualify. I wonder which ones do.

I wonder if the minister is willing to share the entire list with us, and could he commit to doing that today? Could the minister share the entire list of projects represented in that $186 million with this House today?

Hon. K. Krueger: The critic already asked a question about the list. That question was answered. I distinctly remember this member heckling away, and maybe he should have been listening, but the fact is that we're going to provide the list. That's been committed.

D. Routley: Well, the minister might not have been listening, but the answer he provided to the critic was that by the end of March that list would be provided.

He's reading from the list now. I've asked him what amounts of money have been allocated for the specific communities within my constituency, and he read them off to the dollar — each one of them.

If that's the case, if he knows in my constituency to the very dollar…. I mean, the Cowichan Valley regional district is going to get $195,261. That's pretty specific. He has told me that Duncan will get $701,891 — not $702,000 but $701,891.

If he knows that, why can't he produce that list today? So that during these estimates debates we can compare
[ Page 13857 ]
which constituencies and which communities are getting what amount of money and determine for the people we represent whether their skepticism of why this money is being required now and why this minister is asking this House to vote on supplementary estimates and avoid the holdback of his salary, which would happen if he went over budget….

Could he perhaps explain and help me explain to my constituents by sharing that list today — not at the end of March but today?

Hon. K. Krueger: This question has been previously asked, previously answered. All the member has to do is read the record.

D. Routley: It was a long question. I guess it was a long no.

Interjections.

D. Routley: I wonder why. Which towns, I wonder. We'll see.

As the minister makes these decisions, how does he apply the previous priorities of government to these decisions?

How do the climate criteria figure into the decisions that this minister is making when he determines which projects will be funded? How do the new relationship criteria figure into the decision-making of the minister on these projects? How do the children's criteria figure into the decision-making of which projects will be approved? How does the priority on seniors get figured into the minister's calculations of which town should get funding and which project is worthy?

Can he tell me how those previous government commitments to ideals are represented in the criteria that he chooses?

Hon. K. Krueger: Previously asked; previously answered.

[1740]

D. Routley: That was a very complete answer. I really appreciate that.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, please allow the speaker to have the floor. Thank you.

Interjections.

D. Routley: We'll get to Health estimates next week.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, please allow the speaker to have the floor, and if the speaker would please address all questions through the Chair.

D. Routley: The last time we sat in the House…. I mean — what? — we've sat here for five days previous to this session?

Interjection.

D. Routley: Six days? Six days previous to this session, since the end of May, and this crisis was boiling in this province throughout the summer. I mean, this was obvious to anybody in the world — let alone North America, let alone Canada, let alone British Columbia — that we were in a crisis. We were in a crisis.

Interjection.

D. Routley: The member for Prince George–Omineca talks about being totally blind. Well yes, here we are — a government that didn't acknowledge the crisis until only two weeks ago. That's totally blind.

But you know, in the meantime we got asked to come back and approve a bill that would allow the city of Vancouver to borrow money to bail out the obligations of the province when it came to the Olympic village project — a failed triple-P project.

During the introduction of that bill, the minister talked about the 1,100 construction jobs that were at risk. It was very important to the city of Vancouver. He talked about the amount of property tax increase that the people of Vancouver would endure, would be afflicted with, if we didn't approve that bill. And we were there on the weekend avoiding question period.

A great urgency, again, to be there on the weekend — although a couple of weeks had gone by when we could have had question periods, we could have dealt with the issue and not lost more and more money. But we, the Premier and the government, brought the House back for that priority.

Now local governments that I represent, North Cowichan, are being threatened with a tax revolt of sorts by a company that's in desperate need and trying to survive — that being Catalyst. Catalyst is on the verge of closing mills. Those are not 1,100 temporary construction jobs in a city of a couple of million. Those are 700 permanent jobs in a small constituency.

So I wonder: is there anything the minister can offer North Cowichan to help them absorb what would be a huge blow if Catalyst refuses to pay their property tax? I believe it would put North Cowichan short by somewhere in the order of 30 percent of their tax base if that were to happen.

Is it worthy…? With supplementary estimates, $186 million of public money is being demanded for an eco-
[ Page 13858 ]
nomic earthquake that the minister says he's addressing, and he's preserving employment. Isn't there something, somewhere, that he can do to help the municipality of North Cowichan?

We called the government back on the weekend to help the city of Vancouver with what, proportionately, was a smaller problem to them. Can the minister offer any kind of reason that…? He's here for $186 million in projects. Why isn't he here for millions of dollars to help the communities that are being threatened with this refusal to pay property tax? Why is the priority $186 million worth of projects versus helping those communities survive and saving permanent jobs?

Hon. K. Krueger: I think if any of the member's constituents read the Hansard record, they'll be shocked at his inability to understand what this supplemental estimates debate is about or to actually ask questions that are germane to it. Hopefully, he actually does understand that nothing that he just said comes within the scope of this debate.

[1745]

D. Routley: This minister is asking this House to approve $186 million in project money. He's told this member, in response, that he's doing that because of an economic earthquake that has hit North America.

The minister is obviously out of touch with what my constituents face. My constituents live in a forest-dependent community. They've been feeling the shock waves of that earthquake for months and months. The government has refused to act.

We are called here to discuss $186 million in project funds. I'm merely asking the minister why, in his ministry, he signed off on a request for $186 million in funding projects, when obviously he's ignoring a calamity that's occurring in communities that are supported by Catalyst pulp mills? Why aren't we here addressing those issues?

Hon. K. Krueger: Thankfully, there is certainty, I think, that the local governments whose communities the member listed earlier — and I detailed the funds that would be flowing to them — understand the programs that we're dealing with. They'll certainly be pleased to receive their shares, be it small community grants, or traffic fine revenue-sharing, or carbon tax rebate.

They'll know — where the member clearly doesn't understand — what they want to do with regard to LocalMotion, Towns for Tomorrow, Trees for Tomorrow. They'll know all of those things. They'll be pleased with what's happening here.

For the rest of us, I guess we just have to suffer through more of the same from the member, for as much of the debate as he wants to occupy with a discussion that has no relevance to what we're actually talking about. I don't think his constituents will be very pleased with the way he has been spending his time or the House's time today.

D. Routley: I'm really pleased that the minister is so concerned with the happiness of my constituents. Thank you very much.

I'll invite the minister to address them by answering why their priorities, the projects that I listed in the first place…. The minister pretty much dismissed any opportunity to find partnership opportunities, to see flexibility. We are told, on the one hand, that we're here for an economic earthquake that requires immediate attention, and yet the deadlines for the projects and programs that he's discussing here have been well passed.

These are the priorities that are offered by the municipality of North Cowichan, not by the opposition, not by me, but by them. Yet he chooses not to answer in a positive way. He chooses to make an attack on the member rather than address the issue.

He is also representative of a government that did call the House in emergency session to deal with the property tax implications of the Olympic village, the huge threat that that made to the taxpayers of Vancouver. I'm merely asking him why the taxpayers of North Cowichan and other Catalyst-supported communities weren't priority enough to be included in his request for supplementary estimates, in his request for extra funding.

Why did this minister not see…? Why did he not respond to the years of pleadings from Catalyst to make adjustments to the tax structure in the province to help them survive? I mean, we're here to discuss $186 million in projects that the minister has already refused to provide invitations to members for the announcements of.

[1750]

You know, I went to a PNWER conference in Alberta, and the Solicitor General was talking about cooperation with the opposition. The American members of that conference were shocked to hear that public money could be spent in a town without the local representative being notified. Then when the critic asked for invitations….

We're not talking about a decade. We're talking about the 54 days before the writ is dropped. We're talking about 82 days — I think it's 82 days, isn't it? — until the election day, and we're being asked to write the minister a cheque for $186 million that he's going to rush out and spend before an election.

J. Rustad: Oh, so we should put the world on hold just because there's an election coming? Gotcha.

D. Routley: The member for Prince George–Omineca doesn't seem willing to entertain the idea that an invitation should be extended to local elected officials, and I'd be surprised if it is.

Interjections.
[ Page 13859 ]

The Chair: Members. Members.

Members, will you please allow the speaker to have the floor.

D. Routley: Will the minister commit to inviting locally elected representatives, both municipal and provincial, from both sides of the House, to the announcements that he makes? When these projects, which are being funded with the $186 million cheque that we're being asked to write here, are announced, will he provide invitations? Simple question.

Hon. K. Krueger: As the member said, the government and every member over here is profoundly concerned about the happiness of the communities of Vancouver Island and all the rest of this province.

We're debating this matter today because we believe that doing what we have set out to do will add stability to those communities and the families who live in them, and the workers who have jobs that they're hoping they will retain, or the workers who will get jobs because of the massive amount of infrastructure that is going to be constructed in this province.

We think that consumer confidence is very important — taxpayer confidence, confidence of people who live in communities. We've gone about these programs in a very businesslike and disciplined way, setting out the parameters well in advance. They're well understood by the communities that the member purports to represent, but bewilderingly, he seems to have been taken by surprise by all of these things.

The election date, of course, was calendared four years in advance. Everybody has known when the election is going to be. These programs have been running for years — some of them, most of them. The debate over the carbon tax has been the opposition's main refrain. Surely the member knows about carbon tax rebate provisions that are included in these supplemental estimates. None of this should take him by surprise. Towns for Tomorrow was announced in 2006.

It is bewildering how a person who says that he represents people could express such a lack of knowledge and understanding. I think the member knows that the difficulties of a major employer in his area, Catalyst, are of profound concern to everyone present. He came to see me in my office recently about another matter. He didn't mention that. Other members certainly have, and local governments have come to me, but this supplemental estimates debate has nothing to do with that. He should know that. Hopefully, he does. But there isn't a question there of relevance that hasn't already been answered.

D. Routley: No surprise on the election date — that's for sure — but it's certainly a surprise that the minister would come and ask for a $186 million supplementary estimate immediately after we had voted on a bill that would make that act illegal for the next year.

[1755]

Here we are saving the minister his 10 percent holdback and offering him the opportunity to balance his books. He's the one who has referred to the great surprise of the economic earthquake that we're enduring. Yet he chooses just to make a personal attack on me as a member — for whatever reason, I don't know.

What we're asking on behalf of our constituents, as he seeks to spend $186 million more in public money, is that when the announcements of those projects are made so close to a provincial election, only a few days away, that he extend invitations to both sides of the House to ensure that people understand that this is not politically driven and not politicized by the government — that the government won't use these as an opportunity to showcase themselves and their preferred candidates in whatever constituency.

I think the minister should promise the people of British Columbia that he's going to fairly represent them and ensure that both sides of the House are present when he makes, or any member of the government makes, those announcements. Can the minister do that?

Hon. K. Krueger: Question previously asked. Question previously answered.

C. Wyse: Do any of the funds in the $186 million involve federal transfer?

Hon. K. Krueger: All of the $186 million that we're dealing with is provincial money. The reason that I hesitated in my answer is that I am hoping — and I spoke with Stockwell Day about it when he was here this week — that the federal government will be willing to partner with us on LocalMotion and the Towns for Tomorrow program in order that we have more money than our budgets. We'll be able to provide even more projects, provide the funding for even more projects, around the province.

Already we believe we're touching every community in the province, every region. We think it's going to be very good for the communities. It would be twice as good if we were successful in that request. Mr. Day, who has worked hard to assist us in meeting the needs of British Columbians, has taken it under advisement and is considering it. So that's the reason for the hesitation.

But no, all of this $186 million is provincial money.

C. Wyse: There is absolutely no question that I have to agree with the minister that if the budget proper had dealt with the issues that ran across all of British Columbia, all British Columbians would have been better off. I have to agree with the point that the minister
[ Page 13860 ]
is making. But he has brought into the discussion a hope of something, and to ascribe to it, that could be very misleading to the people of British Columbia — that the minister in actual fact is anticipating, before the government dissolves, that the federal government is going to provide this box of money.

So to remove false hope…. Because in times of great demand, the last thing that should be put on the table is false hope. Whether it was meant or not, there is that possibility, as the minister has presented it.

[1800]

I'm asking the minister to confirm for this House whether he has any reason to more than just hope that the federal government is going to step forward with these funds. Does he have reason to believe that they are going to be available here in British Columbia? If so, will they be available to British Columbians in a timely fashion so that all British Columbians will have an opportunity to access those funds before the election takes place?

Hon. K. Krueger: What a peculiar opposition this is. They've been attacking us all day for needing to have supplemental estimates to fund a large ramp-up, for example, in the Towns for Tomorrow program, which was announced last fall, and saying: "Oh, we shouldn't be doing that." But whatever we do, they sure hope to be invited to announcements and ribbon cuttings.

The critic asked me a question about federal government participation. I didn't have to tell him anything. The flat answer is — and he should have known it — the $186 million is all provincial money.

But he asked me a question, so I turned to my deputy and said: "Well, I think I'm going to tell the opposition that we have a hope of this happening." We have a federal government that has introduced a budget that provides massive amounts of money to help with the very sorts of problems that we've been talking about all day: communities in trouble and families worried about their incomes, whether they'll be able to continue to live where they do.

The federal government has expressed a willingness to participate in infrastructure projects with us. We announced, the other day, funding for 41 of those projects, including a specific one.

The critic asked me a question about federal involvement, got an answer, and then says it's a dangerous thing to have given that answer. So I'll certainly endeavour not to share with the critic the hopes and possibilities that I think are actually going to be good for the morale of communities in his constituency. That's the answer.

J. Kwan: I've got to tell you that I've been sitting here listening to this debate pretty well for the entire afternoon. From the way in which the minister speaks, you would think that the opposition's job is simply to nod and say yes to the minister.

Sorry, not so. Our job here is exactly to scrutinize the spending on behalf of British Columbians. That's what we're elected to do. That is exactly our job. The minister is asking for spending authority of $186 million out of this vote of supplementary estimates. As we uncovered in the debate by the critic who asked very precise questions, some of these funds, in fact, could have been allocated under Budget 2009-10. The government chose not to do that and, instead, used it as supplementary estimates.

I would ask the minister to please be mindful of the fact that we have a responsibility here, and our job is not just to simply say yes because they think that we should.

On top of that, it's as though…. The minister is making it sound like there's something obscene when the opposition is saying that where the government is making announcements, all elected officials should be invited, independent of their party affiliation. That was what was done when we were in government. We had enough courtesy to invite the other side, but not so under this government, in this practice.

If the minister would please, please focus on the non-partisanship of these discussions — in the sense of where expenditures of taxpayers' moneys are being allocated. If the government would have the courtesy to extend that information so that it could see the light of day for both opposition and other elected officials so that they are aware of the situation.

It's not the practice right now, I'll tell you that. It's not the practice right now, and we've moved far, far away from appropriate practice, I might add. There's nothing untoward for the critic — or anybody else, for that matter, in this House — to ask the minister to extend that courtesy to all elected officials.

[1805]

On that point, with respect to the funding of the $186 million supplementary estimates, it is completely appropriate in the line of questions which the critic is asking.

If the minister would care to explain to this House the jobs for tomorrow and Trees for Tomorrow pieces that he's talking about — the breakdown of where those funds are going — we would very much appreciate it.

Hon. K. Krueger: At the beginning of those remarks the member made pretty clear a theme that has been emerging from the opposition all day: essentially, that they want this funding delayed, that they don't think we should put the funds into communities' hands — as we fully intend to do and as we will do. The opposition will have its say, but we will do what we've committed to do. The member apparently thinks that we should wait till some time in the 2009-10 cycle. Well, that's what she thinks; that's not what we think.

It's really rich to be hectored by this member, who once, sadly, had the responsibility for the predecessor of
[ Page 13861 ]
this ministry, when she gave a $20,000 grant to a laundromat. It's amazing to see the dripping hypocrisy from members opposite, who will question whether we're going to fairly allocate money from the fall of 1999 to December 2000. The NDP in office gave out $11.4 million in grants. Less than $100,000 of the $11.4 million in over a year went to B.C. Liberal–held constituencies, and these people are going to stand up here and whine and rant about….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members.

Member, I want you to bring the debate back to the discussion.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Krueger: Perhaps when you restore order, Mr. Chair.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. Order, members. Order so that we can continue on the debate.

C. Wyse: In my mind that is where I've attempted to be, throughout this afternoon — on the debate and on the issues that are here, which have included the various criteria for the allocation of these funds, trying to ensure that they are available right across the province and to ensure that they fit in with the aspect of the supplementary estimate process.

I sought clarity on the distribution of these funds. I've received assurances from the minister and his staff that I would be provided, in a timely fashion, with how these funds are disbursed. Clearly it is fair questioning to establish that here in British Columbia, when we are on the eve of an election, the government is not simply setting up a slush fund to be involved in the campaign.

[1810]

In my estimation the minister has helped clarify that. He has clearly established that not everybody will be invited to the party of the announcements. I have acknowledged his forthrightness on that aspect of it. I believe, as I've already said, that it took great strength to bring that to the table and say that in actual fact that is what is going to happen.

I did appreciate the frankness of the minister in saying that he would not extend an invitation and advising all members in the House — all 79 of us — that when announcements are going to be made, that would not be extended and that would not be the practice. That's very forthright. I appreciate that, and I've acknowledged it.

Returning to the supplements on the Trees for Tomorrow, there are funds contained in there for this particular program. Trees for Tomorrow doesn't involve anything for trees for the workers today.

What I have in front of me is the funding that's part of the provincial government's $13 million commitment "to plant four million trees in school yards, hospital grounds, civic parks and other public spaces" in British Columbia over the next five years. The minister has pointed out time and time again that the supplementary funds are there to provide community stability and jobs. I've read from the government's own documents what this $2 million is about.

You see, we're actually talking about choices that are being placed in front of us here. The minister and I have a similarity in that we come from a part of the province in which the tree performs a variety of different things, one of them being employment. Both the minister and I have communities that have suffered greatly at that falldown — some more recently than others.

We have communities here in the province…. When we talk about stability, we talk about almost all jobs being lost. We talk about the lack of opportunity. We talk about individuals — that options for them are fading. We talk about the lack of continued resources being available to them. These other things have disappeared. So when I look upon a supplementary estimate of $2 million for Trees for Tomorrow within that context, it's a choice that's been made.

In the supplements that have been presented, there aren't a lot of choices that have been made available to these resource-based communities. Then to roll out a supplementary estimate saying that that is the way out of this and this is where it will be leading to…. It begs some credibility, in my judgment. In my judgment, it shows a major leap of the effect of the bill that is in front of us — a huge leap.

[1815]

But I will lead back around to general questions that I've been asking around the various programs. This is one of the programs that I have greater difficulty in determining what the criteria would be, who makes the application and how these funds roll out, because it involves school yards, hospital grounds, civic parks and other public spaces — of which there are a multiplicity of organizations that are responsible for the items that are listed here.

What are the criteria used to determine how these funds are applied and who may actually apply for this particular program?

Hon. K. Krueger: Hon. Chair, that was sort of a double-barrelled commentary. I'll deal with the matters that the critic raised in the order he raised them. I trust you'll give me the same latitude to respond that you've given him and his colleagues.

Once again there is this reproach about why they can't come and be part of everything we're doing, while
[ Page 13862 ]
they've spoken so negatively about it. The whole point is to increase confidence and bolster a sense of security in communities, not to have people show up and say such negative things, to call $186 million a meagre allocation when they were down to only $34 million for the whole province in grants when they were government.

When the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spoke, I was thinking about the way she conducted the ministry when she had it. In 1999 when she was minister, there were $42 million in cuts to local government grants.

I'm reading here from an account of January 30, 2001, in The Vancouver Sun. It says:

"Fall of 1999. The first press releases from her new ministry announce the first seven community-based grants totalling $9.2 million. By an amazing coincidence" — says Vaughn Palmer — "100 percent of the money goes to NDP-held ridings.

"In early 2000 the ministry rolls out the next 18 grants. The New Democrats hold just 53 percent of the seats in the Legislature, but their turf is on the receiving end of 90 percent of the money.

"December 2000. With Christmas approaching, there's another flurry of grants, but it would appear that Santa regards the Liberal-held constituencies as mainly naughty, for they only got two grants totalling $18,500, whereas the nice places that voted NDP in the last election are rewarded to the tune of $700,000."

And these folks are going to reproach anybody about the things that they think they feel suspicious and cynical about? Well, no blooming wonder.

The member asked for details on the Trees for Tomorrow program. That was the sensible part of the question. I'm happy to deal with that. There was a 2008 throne speech commitment. There was a UBCM 2008 announcement.

Trees for Tomorrow supports urban and rural communities and the planting of four million trees in school yards, hospital grounds, civic parks, campuses, parking lots and other public spaces throughout B.C. for the next four years.

Trees for Tomorrow is a four-year, $13 million program to mobilize and engage community groups, neighbourhoods and individuals across B.C. and leverage private sector participation to plant millions of trees in communities. The program is part of the province of British Columbia's strategy to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by at least 33 percent below current levels by 2020.

Participation in the program will assist local governments to meet their climate action charter obligations. This ministry is working in partnership with Evergreen, a not-for-profit organization responsible for technical assistance and applicant support of the initiative throughout B.C., and 25 community workshops are planned to occur prior to March 31, 2009.

[1820]

The application deadline for the first intake was January 16, 2009. There was a tremendous level of interest — 128 applications received. We'll be making announcements of the recipients of Trees for Tomorrow financial support no later than the middle of March, as we've said on other programs.

Applications are currently being assessed by Evergreen to ensure that the proposed projects meet the objectives of the program. The total amount requested for the first intake is $2.8 million. Successful applicants will be informed in the next four months.

The next application date deadline is March 31, 2009. Before we are done, we're going to have planted four million trees — 400,000 free-to-grow trees and 3.6 million seedlings in mountain pine beetle–affected urban areas.

The critic asked the question and doesn't seem interested in the answer, but there it is. Maybe he can read it.

C. Wyse: I think it's time that I would like to get up and move that the committee report glacial progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:22 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of Supply, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Christensen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.

[ 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 © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175