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)

Monday, February 23, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 38, Number 8

[ Page 13881 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. W. Oppal: In the House today we have two visitors from southern California, Peter Friedrichsen and Horst Erichsen. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the House and in asking that they continue to visit British Columbia.

S. Simpson: I am pleased to introduce some guests that are with us today: Raigen D'Angelo, Amy Fox, Emily Morgan and Sandra Laframboise. They are here with the Trans Alliance Society, which is an organization of transgendered activists who are dedicated to providing education to the general public about the issues that their community faces.

[1335]

They're with us today to witness our proceedings and to be here for the introduction of a petition later on today that will ask this House to amend the Human Rights Code to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination in British Columbia. Please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I am delighted today to have two friends who are constituents here with us. They're from Prince George. They are Al and Gladys Thorpe. I know them very well from their work with the Elder Citizens Recreation Association. Al is quite renowned for his acting and singing and, I guess, dancing ability, but we're delighted to have them here.

We're always pleased to have people travel from northern B.C. to join us. Please join me in making them feel very welcome today.

M. Farnworth: In the House today are a group who have been very active on public safety issues in the province of British Columbia. That's FACT — Families Against Crime and Trauma. In the gallery are the president, David Toner; the executive director, Sandra Martins-Toner; Gord Penner; Dave Marley; Donna McMillan; Jean Lewis; James Lewis; Darryl Brown; Paul Glover and Debi Glover. Would the House please make them most welcome.

R. Sultan: In the precinct are John and Cathy Cave, proprietors of Take Off Eh Cruise and Travel. If you book through John Cave, he will come and pick you up and take you to the dock or the airport in his Cadillac limousine for nothing.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome a guest of mine. It's Dave Rubenstein. Dave has been a Cobble Hill–Duncan area activist for a long time in that he served on a Cobble Hill–area advisory committee. He's been 16 years at the Cowichan Valley Citizen newspaper. He's served in radio and television. He's a member of the Cowichan Valley Therapeutic Riding Association and gives great service to that organization.

This is a man who's in touch with his community. Today we shared our thoughts on the diversity of the valley that we live in, the many places that…. Although I've lived there since 1964, I still experience new things there. So I want the House to help me thank Dave for his service to our community and for his friendship to me.

D. MacKay: Looking up in the gallery today, I see a young man from Smithers, which is located in the beautiful Bulkley Valley. Just a reminder that it is still winter up north. We sometimes forget that when we're down here.

Kyle is down in Victoria today, and he told me at lunch today that the last time he was in this building was when he was in grade 8.

Looking at you today, Kyle, I suspect that was two years ago.

So I would ask the House to please make Kyle welcome to this chamber.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure today to introduce three guests that I have here. Firstly, I'd like to introduce my niece Joanne Beagle. Joanne is a longtime resident of the Victoria area. Joanne is accompanied by her in-laws Don and Joyce Beagle.

Finally, I would also like to welcome my lifelong friend, companion and wife Sheila Wyse, who is also with us. I'd ask us to join in making all four of them welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Joining us in the gallery today are Terry Hoff and Brent Reid. Terry and Brent are both leaders with the CEP in Campbell River at the Elk Falls mill. They're strong leaders in their community. Their people believe in the long term of the pulp industry in the province of British Columbia, and they're down talking to me, looking for creative solutions to make that a reality. Would the House please make both of them very welcome.

S. Herbert: I rise to welcome Kelly Read, who is a constituency assistant for the MLA for Vancouver-Kensington, her daughter Nikki and her son Michael. Please make them very welcome. It's their first day in the House.

Hon. L. Reid: We're joined in the precincts today by Jennifer Burnett, formerly of this place and currently the CEO and registrar of the College of Dental Hygienists. I would ask the House to please make her very welcome.

[1340]
[ Page 13882 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the gallery we're joined by a longtime member of the aggregate industry. Ted Carlson is with us, involved in building many of the roads and highways and buildings throughout the province of British Columbia. He's also joined by his cousin Julian Carlson, who is involved in the real estate development business. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: In the House today are Brenda Marin-Link and Roland Link, who live in my constituency in Sidney. Brenda used to work for the Auditor General in the province. Would the House please make them both welcome.

C. Trevena: I, too, would like to welcome my constituents from the Elk Falls mill. I think the House is very well aware that we've got an indefinite closure there, and I hope that a solution is found very speedily so everybody can get back to work.

Statements (Standing Order 25b)

HOCKEYVILLE competition

D. MacKay: It's that time of year again, when towns all across Canada compete to win the coveted title of Hockeyville 2009. Hockey is not only Canada's official winter sport, but it is a large part of our life and culture and is a source of pride in the rural communities, especially in the north. I know that from getting up at five o'clock Saturday mornings with my grandson.

Every year towns from across Canada compete to win the $100,000 for improvements to the local arena and a chance to host the NHL exhibition game and, most importantly, bragging rights. This year Terrace was named as one of the top five towns in Canada, garnering over 382,000 votes in just four days of voting to earn that spot.

We've never won Hockeyville in B.C. We came close three years ago when the town of Smithers, in my constituency, qualified as a finalist. We came so close.

We now have another great opportunity to show our love of hockey and sports as well as to demonstrate our community spirit as we gear up for the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympic Winter Games. I'd like to ask all British Columbians to cast their votes for the city of Terrace and lend them our support as we show the rest of Canada our B.C. pride.

Good luck to Terrace in the final hours of the competition.

FOREST INDUSTRY in B.C.

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about forestry. Forestry in B.C. is a story of connections — the connections between the history of our great province and our many great communities supported by this great industry. My friend Rick Doman, who is a past CEO of Western Forest Products, talks about his dad Herb Doman and the connections between the men of timber who built that industry.

It's about towns like Lake Cowichan in my constituency, where the first pay equity struggle was fought in this country for the Asian and South Asian workers, as opposed to their white counterparts. That has led to some of the diversity that we see in this House today.

Lake Cowichan was the birthplace of the IWA union. It's about the connections between logging and sawmills and pulp mills. It's about the connection between the people — loggers and millers and tree-planters. It's about the heavy equipment manufacturers, the wire rope sellers, the bearings sellers and dealers, right through to the small businesses in our communities supported by the industry.

It's about the link between our resources and our communities, the link between the benefit of those resources and the support of the services we enjoy — health and education. It's about the links to our past, our present and our future. It's about the links between peoples — the Sikhs I mentioned, the first nations that we represent and their rights to resources.

This is a renewable industry, a green industry. Forestry is the key to our future. Forestry is the key to our continued prosperity. Let this House make a renewed commitment to maintaining that excellent industry.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Companies
in Burnaby

R. Lee: Developing and improving technologies to produce alternative renewable energy in an environmentally responsible way is one of the key challenges we face today. Many Burnaby companies are working to create a greener planet. Burnaby is now home to half of the largest 14 alternative energy companies in B.C. We have Ballard Power Systems, Xantrex Technology, Hydrogenics Test Systems, Azure Dynamics, Day4 Energy and Lignol Innovations.

[1345]

Last month I had the opportunity to revisit Ballard Power Systems. Ballard is the leading company that designs, develops and manufactures zero-emission proton exchange membrane fuel cells. It was the only industry in Canada visited by the Chinese president Hu Jintao in 2005.

Engineers at Ballard are working hard to encourage fuel cell proton product adoption by both industry and the public. Xantrex Technology is a world leader in advanced power electronics, focusing on the renewable and mobile market.

In 2001 I had the opportunity to witness a joint venture in the making between Xantrex and Shanghai Electric during the Premier's visit to Shanghai. Xantrex specializes in converting and controlling raw electrical power from various power resources into high-quality
[ Page 13883 ]
power required by electronic equipment and the electricity grid.

Tekion Solutions, which is in the business of commercialization of micro fuel cell technology, is a prime example of the success of the provincial nominee program. This program attracted experienced scientists, engineers and marketers into this province.

The work that Lignol Innovations is doing in this area is of great importance. Lignol Innovations recently received $1.82 million in funding for a biomass pilot project in Burnaby. They will use the funding to work on turning wood waste into fuel-grade bioethanol and biochemicals through biorefining technology.

I'm proud our companies in Burnaby are taking the lead in investing in green technology.

JIM WAKELY

M. Sather: Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows is mourning the death of Inspector Jim Wakely of the Ridge Meadows RCMP on February 13. Inspector Wakely served three terms with Ridge Meadows RCMP, most recently rejoining the detachment as inspector in 2006.

Jim Wakely was known as a man of character and was widely respected in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. He was a strong family man, a religious man and a man of wit and good humour. I was pleased to meet with Inspector Wakely not long after he returned to Ridge Meadows for his last tour of duty. He struck me as an intelligent, thoughtful and open individual.

I got to know Jim better during his consistent attendance at Maple Ridge business improvement association meetings. He was a strong defender of the work of his staff, but when fair criticism was levelled at the work of the detachment, he would not hesitate to say: "That's not acceptable. We will do better."

I was very impressed with Inspector Wakely's ability to make significant changes in the relationship between his detachment and survival sex trade workers in Maple Ridge. He realized that the standard procedure of moving these women on or arresting them was not a solution. He took it upon himself to learn more about the social and addiction issues of our sex trade workers, and soon the detachment was developing a positive relationship with many of these women, helping them to be safer and to get the help they need.

Jim Wakely was a trail-blazer whose work will make Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows better places to live in perpetuity. He will be missed in our communities.

Volunteer Organizations in
RICHMOND-STEVESTON Area

J. Yap: I rise today to recognize the efforts of a group of local not-for-profit societies in my community. The Group of Seven is a collection of grass-roots volunteer groups that work diligently to improve Richmond and the village of Steveston. The group includes the Gulf of Georgia Cannery Society, the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Society, the London Heritage Farm historical society, the Steveston Museum, the Steveston Community Society, the Rotary Club of Steveston and the Steveston Harbour Authority.

Each of these groups work for the greater good by engaging community members and coordinating volunteer efforts to produce a variety of programs and events in Richmond and Steveston. The volunteer-run services they provide range from the weekly park cleanup by the Rotary Club of Steveston, the guided tours available at the Britannia Heritage Shipyard, the volunteer-maintained gardens at the London Heritage Farm to the Steveston Salmon Festival on Canada Day by the Steveston Community Society, which features one of the Lower Mainland's longest-running annual parades.

The facilities and programs operated by the Group of Seven help preserve Richmond's past, and I'm confident the strong volunteer spirit they foster will thrive into the future.

[1350]

I'd also like to recognize the people leading these organizations. Loren Slye, Larry Tolton, Ron Hyde, Graham Turnbull, Jim Kojima, Doug Nielsen and Bob Baziuk are all working very hard for our community. Their leadership efforts are supported by a number of integral volunteers, including James McMillan, Ralph Turner, Eileen Carefoot, Bob Butterworth, Charmis De Boer, Stan Watterson and Edith Turner.

The Group of Seven truly exemplifies the best of Richmond-Steveston, a strong and healthy community spirit that shines through on these economic times, making our community a better place in which to live, work, play and raise a family.

swan lake–christmas hill
nature sanctuary

R. Fleming: Today I would like to recognize before the House an incredible education centre in my constituency, the Swan Lake–Christmas Hill Nature Sanctuary. This protected land has two distinct areas: the marshy lowlands surrounding Swan Lake and the rocky, oak-forested highlands of Christmas Hill.

The Swan Lake–Christmas Hill Nature Sanctuary is a registered charitable organization run by the society. The lands and facilities are owned by the district of Saanich, and the nature sanctuary society has operated through a land management agreement with Saanich since 1975.

The mission of the society is to manage the wetlands and the wildlife and provide a first-class interpretive experience with nature, including guided bird walks. The Swan Lake and Christmas Hill sections are connected by a trail corridor, a 2.5-kilometre looped trail that includes
[ Page 13884 ]
wharves and a floating walkway to provide access to the lake area.

While appealing to both young and old, the sanctuary offers school-age children, in particular, an opportunity to develop their sense of personal responsibility for the care and protection of the natural environment.

Swan Lake was rescued from oblivion just a few decades ago. During much of its recent history it was a dumping ground for raw sewage and dairy farms. Cleanup began in the 1970s, and today the lake is rich habitat for a variety of wildlife.

The sanctuary offers a wide variety of programs for my constituents during every season of the year, and the staff and volunteers have designed programs to be both fun and an unforgettable experience.

I invite all members of this House to join me in thanking those involved with the Swan Lake–Christmas Hill Nature Sanctuary for their ongoing commitment and their hard work protecting and enhancing the terrain and wildlife in this area.

Oral Questions

budget revenue projections

C. James: The minister's Economic Forecast Council asked to meet with the government before the budget because they believed the government's forecasts were overly optimistic. But the government refused to hear the truth, and now we know why.

Here's the B.C. Central Credit Union take on this government's budget. They ask a question. "How do the budget's economic assumptions stand up to the available data?" "Badly" is their conclusion. I quote from the report. "The likelihood of this budget's 2009 forecast missing the mark by a wide margin is high."

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Why should British Columbians believe this government's budget when it's clear that the experts don't?

Hon. C. Hansen: The Economic Forecast Council is made up of 12 of the leading economists from across Canada. We met with them in early December. They provided their latest forecasts for British Columbia, for Canada and for the United States for the coming years.

We also, at that time, gave them an opportunity to update their forecasts by the middle of January, should they wish to do so. By the middle of January the average GDP forecast of the 12 of them was that the B.C. economy would not grow, that it would actually be at zero percent.

As is always the case, we took some added prudence into the budget, and we based our economic outlook at minus 0.9 percent for GDP for 2009. We think that's prudent. We think it actually allows for a further deterioration of the economy, should that happen. If anything, the budget is based on conservative projections.

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

[1355]

C. James: It's certainly not what the B.C. Central Credit Union is saying. This budget is a sham. A key member of the government's own economic….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: I quote again from the report. "Revenue in 2009-10 is not likely to be realized," said Mr. Pastrick's report.

Again to the minister. This budget is built on sand. The experts don't believe the government's numbers. Why should the public believe those numbers?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a difference in the way that budgets are put together in this decade. It's not like the 1990s, when the politicians invented numbers on revenue and plugged them into the budget. We actually based our projections on independent, verifiable, third-party, objective input.

This is a government that in the last seven years has met every single one of its budget projections. In the 1990s we had a government that tabled fiscal plan after fiscal plan and never met a single objective in those plans. That is one of the reasons why this province went through significant credit downgrades in the 1990s. The responsible delivery of fiscal management of the province of British Columbia is the reason why today this province has the highest credit rating of any province in Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The Finance Minister talked about indicators. Let's take a look at what the credit union says about those indicators.

The government missed the mark on housing and sales tax. Mr. Pastrick called it a large miss. That's what his report says, budget line after budget line. Housing starts — "too rosy." Employment income — "overstated." Sales tax revenue — "wildly optimistic." It's not me saying this. It's Helmut Pastrick, one of the most highly respected economists in British Columbia.

So my question, again, is to the minister. Why should British Columbians trust, when it comes to honesty and accuracy of this budget, when we have a Premier who is in damage control and an economist who says the
[ Page 13885 ]
government has completely missed the mark when it comes to this budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: As the Leader of the Opposition may know, Helmut Pastrick is one of the 12 members of our Economic Forecast Council, and Mr. Pastrick's….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Pastrick's rather pessimistic view of the British Columbia economy is not shared by the other 11 economists on the Economic Forecast Council. So I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that the numbers upon which we based the budget are the average of the outlook from the Economic Forecast Council, including the opinions of Mr. Pastrick. I think what you will find is that we've built additional prudence into the budget.

I stand by our track record as a government in delivering on our budget plan, and I have full confidence that we will do that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: Well, as the minister will know, the CIBC and the Bank of Montreal economists have also downgraded their forecast.

But let's have another quote from the report of the B.C. Central Credit Union. "A deficit of $1 billion to $1.5 billion, or 0.6 percent of GDP, in 2009-10 is the more likely outcome due to revenue shortfalls." Very clear. You can't trust the budget. You can't trust the B.C. Liberals.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: why should British Columbians accept this budget when the Premier's own economic experts are rejecting it?

[1400]

Hon. C. Hansen: To the Finance critic and the official opposition: you know, what British Columbians are actually waiting for is to find out what the NDP stand for. We know what they stand against.

Here's a Finance critic from the official opposition who in November was saying that if they were government, they would bring in a balanced budget. They would knock an $880 million hole in the revenue stream. They would jack up health spending by $2 billion, according to the Health critic, and somehow they were still going to magically produce a balanced budget. If there is any challenge in credibility in this House, it's with the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Wriggle and squirm. Wriggle and squirm. British Columbians….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

B. Ralston: British Columbians don't trust the budget that this Minister of Finance has brought forward. His credibility is in question. So will the minister commit today to revising his budget and telling the truth about the B.C. economy?

Hon. C. Hansen: I guess what the member is suggesting is that we should maybe go back to 1996 and look for examples about how politicians manipulate budget revenue numbers.

In this government we do not do that. We rely on independent, outside expert advice in terms of revenue projections. We rely on a highly qualified, excellent public service in the Ministry of Finance.

If what the member is suggesting is that somehow I should table a new budget that puts in my numbers instead of those of the experts and those of the officials, quite frankly, I reject that. We're not going back to the kind of Glen Clark budget-making we saw in the 1990s.

R. Fleming: The problem with this budget is that many of its key assumptions don't square with the facts. Let's look at retail sales in British Columbia — declining today. A StatsCan report shows holiday retail sales were down 10 percent this year compared to the year prior. Leading banks are describing the retail situation in British Columbia as being "in full-blown retreat," and yet this budget assumes retail sales will not only grow in 2009, but they'll grow faster in this year than the three years after that.

Let me clarify with the Finance Minister. Is he saying that if the facts get in the way of his budget fiction, we should just take his Attorney General's word for it and think beyond the numbers? Or will he admit that the numbers in this budget aren't based in reality?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think what we're seeing from the NDP today is what British Columbians have come to know about this political party over the last number of years — negative, dismal and pessimistic.

We actually rely on expert advice in terms of budget-making. We actually know that British Columbia is going through a difficult stretch in the economy, as caused by outside global factors. But we also know that this is a province that is resilient, and this is a province
[ Page 13886 ]
that is going into this economic downturn with a solid economic base. We believe this is a province that's going to be even stronger when we come out of it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The problem, again, is that this budget isn't based on reality. The minister has attacked economic independent forecasters who've said as much. Presumably, he attacks the deputy minister who's now in charge of the Credit Union Central of B.C., who produced prior budgets under his watch.

The budget misses the mark on revenue projections, and that's the problem. Its forecasts are overly optimistic. It does nothing to restore consumer confidence.

[1405]

Again to the Minister of Finance: when is he going to admit that his forecasts in this budget document are pure fiction?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, the budget revenue projections that are built into this budget are based on independent outside experts. They are also based on the revenue numbers and work and analysis that was done by some of the finest public servants that you're going to find anywhere in Canada, who work for the Ministry of Finance.

I know that the opposition wants to be dismal. I know they want to be pessimistic. I know that they would actually love it if the economy of British Columbia failed relative to everybody else. But we know that British Columbia is going to come through this economic downturn and be a stronger province as a result. This is a province that's going to fare better than just about any other jurisdiction in North America, and it's because of the sound fiscal management that's coming from this administration.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

IMPACT OF Fuel TAX ON Economy

J. Horgan: Let's talk about some of these revenue numbers for a moment and go back to where we are certain that this government is going to be gouging British Columbians, and that's with the gas tax. We know that the gas tax is going to triple over the next 14 months in this province.

My question to the minister is quite a simple one. You decided to ignore consumers across British Columbia, making them pay a tax that no other province in Canada pays, no other jurisdiction in North America pays. Did you do an economic analysis of how many jobs we will lose as a result of the $500 million you're going to be yanking out of the economy with your gas tax? What are the numbers? How many jobs?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think this also speaks to just how disingenuous the opposition is. What they have said is that they were somehow still going to balance a budget. They were going to ramp up health funding by $2 billion a year, and they were going to eliminate that $880 million revenue stream.

Let me talk about job benefits for a second. Let's talk about the tax reductions in British Columbia that have been funded from that revenue stream, because it is 100 percent revenue-neutral.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: Let's talk about the job benefits that come out of reducing the small business tax rate down to 2.5 percent. Let's talk about the economic stimulus that the 5 percent reduction in provincial income tax is going to have on the B.C. economy when that money gets reinjected back into the B.C. economy. That revenue stream funds assistance for the industrial and light industrial parts of the province.

There are new benefits coming down for the agriculture community, where they're going to get a 50 percent reduction in their education taxes. Let's also talk….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

J. Horgan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of my supplemental.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I got up. I was anxious to get back at the minister. I mentioned pixie dust last week.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: You're supposed to sprinkle it, not snort it, Minister.

The problem with the way you're going with this….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

J. Horgan: British Columbians across….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.
[ Page 13887 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Choose your words wisely, Member.

J. Horgan: British Columbians across this province are paying more to move around as a result of this government's policies — $500 million out of the economy this year as a result of a gas tax that's not paid by Albertans. It's not paid by people from Ontario. It's not paid by people from Washington State.

Consumers, businesses, health authorities and school districts are all having to make higher costs because of this government. Is that your idea of stimulus? Is that your idea of stimulus — taking money out of taxpayers' pockets when they can least afford it?

[1410]

Hon. C. Hansen: In my previous answer, the one thing I didn't get to was the rural and northern homeowner benefit which again, because of this revenue stream, is going to see an extra $200 a year in homeowner grants for northern and rural homeowners.

I recommend to the member that he actually go to the budget documents. It's about page 110 maybe. I don't know the exact page.

In there he will find examples of typical B.C. families from the north, from the south, from the Island, from the cities, with big cars or little cars. What he will find is evidence on those pages that shows that every single family in British Columbia that we can model gets more money in their pockets because of the tax reductions they get than they would ever be paying out in the way of carbon taxes.

MACKENZIE PULP MILL

B. Simpson: Would the Minister of Forests please explain to the people of British Columbia why he let a convicted money launderer buy a chlorine-based pulp mill in Mackenzie?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite should know that that sale was conducted under receivership proceedings by PricewaterhouseCoopers and that it was approved by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: The minister should know that the province had rights in front of that court to protect the public interest. The minister should know that he interfered in the exact same court proceedings to protect logging contractors' rights in the Kootenays. The minister knows all of this.

But the minister has an "I'll hold up the sky; don't worry, be happy" approach to this downturn in the forest market. Here's what he said on Prince George radio shortly after this money launderer took over this mill: "We have a new player in the pulp industry. I think it's particularly good news and adds value to Mackenzie and certainly to the entire province." Yes, that's really played out.

The people in Mackenzie do not trust this company. Will the minister stand up today and confirm that he still believes this is a credible company and that they will open this mill sometime soon? Does he believe that?

Hon. P. Bell: You know, Mackenzie has gone through some very challenging times. I was in Mackenzie a week and a bit ago. In fact, I spent most of the day on Sunday dealing with a very dangerous chemical spill in that plant. The employees at that plant, admirably, dealt professionally with it. They did everything that was necessary. They put themselves at risk dealing with that.

This has been a very challenging file from day one. The sale proceedings in this particular court….

Interjections.

Hon. P. Bell: If members opposite want to use that kind of language, I'd suggest they use it outside when you're not under the protection of this House. Perhaps you'd like to use some of that language outside and see if it stands up.

This decision was made by PricewaterhouseCoopers. It was recommended to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The decision was made by the Supreme Court Justice, and that's the way the decision was made on it.

S. Simpson: We can all be thankful that the workers at Mackenzie protected the public interest by keeping this mill warm even after the owner, Worthington Properties, stopped paying their wages. This is the same company that the Forests Minister called a credible new player in the pulp industry.

To the Minister of Forests: who owns the mill today, and more importantly, who is responsible for the growing environmental uncertainty and its multi-million-dollar cleanup?

Hon. B. Penner: The province of British Columbia does take the environment seriously, and that's why we took action in January to make sure that direction was given for the proper administration of that pulp mill. That pulp mill remains the legal ownership of Worthington. They remain legally committed to repaying the province of British Columbia for the funds that we're expending to keep the public and the environment safe.

[1415]
[ Page 13888 ]

In the meantime we're doing whatever it takes, in cooperation with the local unionized employees and non-unionized employees at that mill site, to make sure the environment is looked after.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: This Minister of Forests did everything he could to take credit when Worthington bought this mill, but this government did not do one iota of due diligence on this company before allowing the sale. As a result, we have an abject failure on our hands. We've created a situation that is worse today for the people in that community than when Pope and Talbot went under.

Given the mess that the Premier and this government have created for British Columbians, how can anybody have confidence about having no more future environmental mess-ups? Is there a plan to deal with this long term, and if there is, will the minister table the plan today?

Hon. B. Penner: You know, the opposition should be ashamed of themselves. The people in Mackenzie have been through a lot of difficulty, and to hear this doom and gloom from the opposition doesn't help any. We are working constructively with the people of Mackenzie. That's why this morning in the media one of the representatives for the community of Mackenzie said that it was a good thing that the province of British Columbia stepped in, in the way that we have.

We're making sure that the workers are getting paid. Is the opposition suggesting they shouldn't get paid? We're making sure that they are getting paid, and the cheques were delivered last week, courtesy of the province of British Columbia.

I'd like to just close again by thanking in particular Carl Bernasky and Tom Boughner, two people working on that jobsite who are working closely with the Ministry of Environment, the province of British Columbia, to do what's best for the people in Mackenzie. We will hold accountable the owners of that mill.

SCHOOL ACCESS FOR REFUGEE CHILD

N. Simons: Today the Representative for Children and Youth released a report about vulnerable children in the justice system in British Columbia. That report reminded us that a stable home environment and attachment to school supports are key to reducing a child's risk of being involved in crime.

Almost three weeks ago the Premier said he would look into the case of a young Rwandan refugee who, after living in a series of foster homes, has chosen a home where he feels safe and part of the family — and where he gets into less trouble, I might add. But he's being forbidden by the Ministry of Children and Families to be allowed to attend school.

It's been almost three weeks since this minister found out about this case, and it's been four months since that young man has been living in that home. Why won't the minister let that young man attend school?

Hon. T. Christensen: Well, it's incredibly disingenuous of the member to raise the question in this House when he well knows that under British Columbia's child protection legislation, the minister is not at liberty to share details of any individual file.

The member has been offered and been provided a briefing in respect of matters. The member has been advised that if he provides a consent form that we can share information, we would be more than happy to fully brief him on this matter.

FUNDING FOR Adoption SYSTEM

R. Austin: In Skeena I know of nine families that want to adopt foster children, who have been obstructed by the underfunding of the Ministry of Children and Families. Some of these families have been waiting four years for a home visit so that they can be approved as adoptive parents, while the children they so desperately want to adopt spend their childhoods shifting between homes and between social workers.

How could the minister approve a budget that cuts more than a hundred staff from a ministry that is already incapable of providing timely aid to children and families?

Hon. T. Christensen: Well, it's worth comparing the record of this government on adoption to the record of that government. When we first became government, there were about 150 adoptions that year. Last year there were over 350 adoptions.

[1420]

The budget for the Ministry of Children and Family Development as presented last week is an increasing budget. We will spend more next year than we did this year and more the year after that. In fact, we're spending 40 percent more today than we did in 2000-2001, and we're ensuring that those dollars are making a difference in the lives of children and families across the province as we serve thousands more children.

comments by agriculture minister
on PARKSVILLE WATERSHED

S. Fraser: On Friday the Minister of Agriculture contacted the Arrowsmith Watersheds Society and apologized for the inaccurate and misleading statements that he made in this House in Thursday's question period about old-growth logging in the Englishman River. The minister
[ Page 13889 ]
apologized in private. Will he now apologize to this House for making inaccurate and misleading statements to the members of the Legislature and to the record of Hansard?

Hon. R. Cantelon: Once again, I want to assure this House that no one is more concerned than the people on this side of the House with the protection of our watersheds, our important watersheds in the Oceanside area — than we are.

I want to say to the Arrowsmith Watersheds Coalition Society that I used the wrong acronym, AWCS. I should have said the Arrowsmith Water Service, which is comprised of representatives from Parksville, from Qualicum Beach and from the regional district, who indeed took part in the watershed assessment portfolio plan to protect the watershed in this sensitive area.

Yes, I did call on Friday night, when I was made aware that I'd used the wrong word, to apologize to them. I've talked to Michael Jessen, and he accepted my apologies. I now set the record straight here.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Thursday's question period was the first, I believe, for this minister. It was zero for one. I think he's going zero for two.

There are photographs of the logging site — devastated logging site. There is a press release from the Arrowsmith Parks and Land-Use Council and e-mails from the Arrowsmith Watersheds Coalition Society, and they prove that everything the minister said in the last question period was inaccurate.

Now, an apology for the record. Will the minister clarify that he withdraws those statements, that they were incorrect and that he will actually stand up and protect the watershed of the people of the region?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Cantelon: Let me reiterate. We are concerned. It's of paramount interest to the citizens, to the constituents of the Oceanside area and to this side of the House. Watershed protection is the top of our priority.

Let me reiterate, for those who perhaps inaccurately recorded the information I gave them in the last Hansard, that only 21 trees were removed from this watershed area, of a total of 228 possible harvestable trees. They were done through a method called snap and fly where the trees are helicopter-logged out of the site.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Cantelon: Well, as a matter of fact, only two hit the ground…

Interjections.

Hon. R. Cantelon: …and for this member opposite….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Cantelon: For the member opposite: immediately after this procedure happened, Department of Fisheries attended. The representatives from the company, a biologist and a geotech, attended, and a DFO official commented, saying he wished that all of them were done as well as this one was done and that no danger to the watershed existed from this operation.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. We're just going to wait a second.

M. Sather: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[1425]

Petitions

M. Sather: I have here a petition with 616 residents calling on the government to save the Albion Ferry.

S. Simpson: I ask leave to submit a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, as we know, transgendered and transsexual citizens in B.C. have faced a long and tragic history of discrimination, as they have elsewhere. This is a petition by 740 citizens for the Trans Alliance Society asking that the B.C. Human Rights Code be amended to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination for all purposes in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, ongoing discussion on the supplementary estimates.
[ Page 13890 ]

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply; K. Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 2:27 p.m.

On Vote 22(S): ministry operations, $186,000,000 (continued).

Hon. K. Krueger: We will continue the opportunity for opposition members to deal with this portion of the supplemental estimates.

In case any members are present who were not here when I introduced my officials, Dale Wall, the deputy minister, is on my right. Shauna Brouwer, the associate deputy minister, is on my left.

C. Wyse: Once more, I would like to follow up with some questions of the minister here. In particular, I wish to start off with a bit of a preamble on the importance of running out this $186 million for supplementary estimates at this period of time. It is immediately just before an election. It is important that we establish that context.

[1430]

On Thursday of last week the minister was kind enough, brave enough to point out that there would be no accommodations, that everyone in the House, members on both sides, would be provided with an opportunity to be available for the announcements.

When I look here at the budget, I see that there is a sum of money being provided for Internet connectivity for rural communities. I'd ask of the minister how this particular item was arrived at.

Hon. K. Krueger: Previously asked and answered.

C. Wyse: I would appreciate the minister to once more put his answer on record. I wouldn't want to be misleading in any fashion. So I would ask that of the minister — how. If he's not willing to provide that aspect of it, then I would like to know what communities have been involved in the consultation process for arriving at this list.

Hon. K. Krueger: The critic should read the record.

C. Wyse: I'm sure that the communities that are involved in this would be interested in having that information and having it be made available to them. So I would then ask of the minister: in actual fact, what communities are going to be receiving these funds?

Hon. K. Krueger: All local governments.

C. Wyse: All local governments. How do they apply for those funds, then?

Hon. K. Krueger: Previously asked and answered.

C. Wyse: I think at this moment in time we have established here with the minister that the minister's degree of cooperation for the examination of these estimates has disappeared. That would be one way that would describe it.

I do have colleagues in the House that have got questions they wish to ask of the minister with the estimates. They do want to obtain the information on behalf of their constituents. The minister is demonstrating some great reluctance to involve himself in the debate. It leaves me more than a little perplexed.

This is a minister that wanted to run things out. He has a record, for example, as a minister — and this is according to a reporter, not according to myself — who is in a hurry to roll things out quickly, in a fashion that is beyond the scrutiny of the House. So with that type of a record that is established, I am hoping that the approach to dealing with these estimates is going to change.

With that, I am going to turn it over to one of my colleagues here who has some questions of the minister, and hopefully, he will provide answers.

M. Karagianis: At the risk of being repetitive, I hope the minister will bear with me. I have some questions directly about several of my communities and wonder if the minister could perhaps let me know if any of the following communities are going to be receiving funds and under what programs: Esquimalt, View Royal and the city of Colwood.

[1435]

Hon. K. Krueger: We spent all day Thursday doing this and demonstrated to the opposition how the program works. We'll be rolling out details shortly, community by community.

M. Karagianis: I do know that the minister did in fact grant other members of this House answers when they asked about specific communities. I did listen in on Thursday afternoon and heard a response, which had very specific and distinct dollar amounts that were disclosed to those members. So I'm a bit confused as to why I've been denied that.

In particular, I'm concerned about communities like Esquimalt. The Archie Browning recreation centre there is an aging building and one of the very few sources of hockey ice and rink time here in the south Island. So it's very important for me to know whether or not this is an
[ Page 13891 ]
opportunity that the community might be getting some dollars towards.

I am also quite interested in what programs are allocating what money where here on the south Island. I do believe it's a fair question, and I would again ask the minister, with the greatest of courtesy, if I could be extended the same information that my colleagues were on Thursday.

Hon. K. Krueger: Six hours of debate on Thursday, and now we will be providing mayors and councils with letters over the next couple of weeks with the details.

M. Karagianis: Perhaps the minister could then answer for me something that's a bit more of a process question. The programs that the minister has been discussing, which these funds are being allocated to, I think are fairly well known. When were these programs put in place, and were there fixed funds attached to those programs when they were first set in place by the government?

Hon. K. Krueger: Previously asked and answered.

M. Karagianis: I did listen with great respect to the debate on Thursday, and I do not believe I heard an answer to the questions that I am asking here. I would like to have the minister please refresh my memory about when these programs were set in place, what kind of funds were allocated to them and how long they have been in place.

Having some familiarity with how government works, I know that when you put a program together like Trees for Tomorrow or many of the other programs that the government has attached these dollars to, they are available for communities to apply for. I know that there are deadlines. The minister has talked about that here at great length on Thursday. I would like to know: when were these programs put in place? Is this the first rollout of these programs, or is this perhaps a second or third rollout of program funding for some of these?

Hon. K. Krueger: The member should read the record.

M. Karagianis: Again, I would just have to say that on Thursday the minister was quite forthcoming to questions by other members of this House about their particular communities — the amount of dollars that they could expect to see going into their communities.

I'm asking what I think are fairly civil questions. I don't understand why the minister is unable to answer these for me.

In particular, I'd like to know if these programs have been in place and this is the third or fourth rollout — perhaps even only the second rollout. I'd like to know: were these programs fully subscribed to the first time that they were put in place, unless this is the first time? Were they fully subscribed? I think it's a reasonable question to ask. I don't understand why I would not be able to get an answer to any of my questions.

Hon. K. Krueger: Communities know the details. In this House these questions have been asked and answered.

M. Karagianis: I guess we're apparently not going to be entitled to get much information out of the minister today, which I consider to be in fact a complete contravention of what the estimates process is about. I would like to just register my deep concerns that the minister is not allowing the same courtesy to other members of this House that he did on Thursday.

[1440]

I would like to, then, ask a question about the community safety aspect of this particular supplementary estimate and ask the minister: exactly what does that cover? What kind of community safety is included under this description of these supplementary estimates today?

Hon. K. Krueger: Local autonomy.

M. Karagianis: So community safety. In particular, I am interested to know how far this community safety description extends. What exactly does it apply to? Autonomy means virtually nothing in the context of my questions here.

If it's community safety, does this cover fire services? Does it cover some aspects of policing? Does it cover some kind of emergency equipment or emergency preparedness in communities? What exactly is covered under this community safety description, and how would the dollars that the minister is seeking be applied to that?

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered on Thursday.

M. Karagianis: I will go back and read the Hansard, although obviously, it's going to give me no answer whatsoever for my community in particular.

I do know that the question was repeatedly asked about where these funds would go to. We know that the minister had a list he was reading from that had very specific dollar amounts that he disclosed to other members of the opposition when they asked that question. I'm uncertain as to why I've been treated differently here.

I would like to know what kind of certainty there is within these estimates for communities about what it is they might expect. It would seem to me that the minister won't really clarify what the community safety aspect of this fund would be for and certainly won't talk about whether or not these funds have been fully subscribed in the past and could be right now.
[ Page 13892 ]

We certainly know that the government is looking for money right now that will be rolled out in a very critical time here pre-election. I expect that the fact we can't get any answers to this is that the communities that will get the most largesse are probably not those that are strong supporters of members of this side of the House.

I'm very disturbed that I got so few answers from this minister. Certainly, I will be reading the Hansard to see exactly why I was treated in a different manner than other members of this House.

Hon. K. Krueger: Excellent certainty.

C. Wyse: I would ask for confirmation that all of the lists that the minister was referring to will be provided to this side of the House. I ask the minister when we will receive that list.

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

C. Wyse: My recollection is that the questions that were asked of the minister were over a series of different lists which the minister was reading from. That is my recollection. I apologize to the House if my recollection, in actual fact, is in error.

I'm asking of the minister that he affirm to this House that the same information he has talked about, which is going to be going out in letters to the mayors and councils and regional districts that he referred to today, will likewise be provided to this side of the House, and when will it be provided to this side of the House?

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

[1445]

G. Coons: Again, our job here is to scrutinize the spending on behalf of our constituents and the government, and that's what we're elected to do.

I believe the minister is asking for $186 million in supplementary estimates, and we believe it should have been allocated previously and brought to the forefront. It seems like the answers coming from the minister are: "It's before the courts." I'm not too sure what he has to hide.

I did go through Hansard. I just wanted to clarify a couple of things with the minister, when I start looking at some of the programs in the discussion from last Thursday.

The Towns for Tomorrow, which is for communities 15,000 and less. There's a limit of $400,000 on it, and there've been a hundred applications put out there, worth about $37 million. Right now there's $30 million that's available in this time frame. The next approval time is March 16. If I'm incorrect, you can interrupt me.

The Trees for Tomorrow is a four-year program with $13 million, and there are 128 applications. It's going to be announced in the next three or four months. There will be another deadline March 31, and that is the $3 million we're talking about.

The carbon tax rebate, which is $3 million. I'm just wondering: how many applications were there put forward for the carbon tax rebates in the communities?

Hon. K. Krueger: They're still coming in.

G. Coons: I didn't think I read that in Hansard, so thank you, Minister.

How is it going to be distributed? Is there a formula? Is there a per capita? How many communities are in the program that have committed to being carbon-neutral, and how is it going to be distributed? If the minister answered that, I missed that previously.

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

G. Coons: I guess going through five or six hours of debate, it's sort of hard to get every answer that you're looking for.

The other fund that the minister was referring to was the LocalMotion infrastructure fund. There's the $151 million. Is this part of that, or is that a separate program?

Hon. K. Krueger: Answered Thursday.

G. Coons: Okay. In this LocalMotion infrastructure it sounds like there are a hundred applications out there. There's $10 million left, and there's $26 million that has been put in for applications. I guess I'll have to go back and try to read that, because I'm not too sure if this is part of the $151 million or separate. So I guess I'll have to sort that one out myself, since we aren't getting the answers from the minister.

Now, I'm just wondering about first nations communities — if any first nations communities are going to be involved, as far as getting any part of the $186 million for strategic investments in communities to encourage economic growth and create jobs to offset the effects of the current economic uncertainty and provide local governments with greater flexibility to address immediate needs, including community safety. Is any of this funding going to any first nations communities at all throughout the province?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes. Trees for Tomorrow applications.

G. Coons: I'm sorry. I missed that. Could the minister please repeat that?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes. Trees for Tomorrow applications.

G. Coons: So as far as any of the other amounts, first nations communities, even though they may be part of the treaty…. Under the Nisga'a treaty, the four
[ Page 13893 ]
communities — New Aiyansh, Greenville, Canyon City and Kincolith — have municipal status. So would they be getting anything as far as their municipal status, as far as treaty?

Hon. K. Krueger: Local governments.

G. Coons: Under the Nisga'a treaty, the four communities in the Nass do have municipality status and therefore are eligible for government grants. So will they be considered part of this process?

[1450]

Hon. K. Krueger: Funded separately.

G. Coons: Is that funded separately under other programs or under just the program the minister mentioned?

Hon. K. Krueger: Not these supplemental estimates.

G. Coons: It was clear last Thursday that the minister was pretty excited about making announcements and letting people know how much money was coming to the communities, whether it was Duncan or Alert Bay or Tahsis. He's clearly established that not everybody's going to be invited to the ribbon cutting or the ceremonies.

Taxpayers and the opposition members are always a bit suspicious, especially after the federal infrastructure announcements of last week, where the minister, in the House, said: "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."

We know that the specific one was $14.2 million — 13 percent of the $110 million — going into the minister's riding. I was hoping, as a couple of my colleagues have mentioned, that…. On Thursday the minister was reading from a list of projects — or amounts of money — going to communities from the small communities grant and the traffic fine revenue-sharing. The minister, on that side of the House, with those members on that side of the House, has access to this piece of paper with amounts coming to our communities throughout the province.

Again, I would reiterate: would the minister, in fairness and integrity and lack of secrecy, share those papers that indicate how much is coming to Prince Rupert, to Port Clements, to the regional district? Would he share that, please.

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes, soon.

G. Coons: I just have one last comment here about shovel-ready projects. When the federal budget came down, I was quite impressed. When I went to the Canadian municipality website and found out all of the B.C. municipalities and regions that put forth their shovel-ready projects, I noticed that Prince Rupert had put forward three: one with their landfill development, one with their sewer project, and one with a paving program. These are shovel-ready projects.

Would the minister let Prince Rupert know if any of their shovel-ready projects will be getting money in the upcoming weeks?

Hon. K. Krueger: Very soon.

B. Simpson: This, quite frankly, is troubling. As a former Premier indicated — Mr. Bennett: "Not a dime without debate." We have a minister here who last week couldn't stop himself from talking with enthusiasm about everything.

So it begs the question: has the minister been muzzled by the Premier's office? Is he not allowed to answer questions now that are meaningful and appropriate questions, given that this is a financial bill that's open for debate?

It is, as my colleague indicated, contemptuous of the parliamentary process for the minister to stand up and say one- or two-word, incomplete sentences in response to legitimate questions.

To the minister. Just for clarification, and you can answer this yes or no: does the minister have responsibility for the community development trust?

Hon. K. Krueger: Not these supplemental estimates.

The Chair: Member. Just remember, Members, that the questions must be relevant to this supplementary estimate.

[1455]

B. Simpson: Correct, Madam Speaker. It's also a point of clarification on the lift, as to where the lift is going, because sometimes the words used in the supplementals don't necessarily match the program funding areas that the minister has, because the program name changes.

What I'm trying to determine — given that this vote states: "…strategic investments in communities to encourage economic growth and create jobs to help offset the effects of the current economic uncertainty…" — is that that is part of the mandate of the community development trust. All I want to find out is if the minister is responsible for the community development trust.

Hon. K. Krueger: Not relevant.

Point of Order

B. Simpson: Point of order, Madam Chair. It's a very simple question. Does the minister have responsibility for this trust or not?

Madam Chair, I raised a point of order. I'd like to have….
[ Page 13894 ]

The Chair: The minister has said it is not relevant, and we would take his word in this House.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, would you sit down, please. Thank you.

Members, this is committee stage, Committee of Supply. Let's get on with that, please.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

Debate Continued

B. Simpson: This is taxpayers' money being lifted in this year, with a government that is facing an election and wants to shovel whatever little money they can get out the door. We're trying to figure out what that shovel looks like and where this money is going, which I think is legitimate for us to ask and for the minister to answer.

With respect, then, to one of the line items in here…. I guess I can't ask if he's responsible for mountain pine beetle. I can't ask if any of this money is going into community development trusts, which this minister knows everybody wants provincial money to go into, or mountain pine beetle. Let's try Trees for Tomorrow. Is any of this money going through the Ministry of Forests?

Hon. K. Krueger: Six hours Thursday.

Interjections.

The Chair: Member. Members.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member. Order, Member.

Member.

B. Simpson: I asked an explicit, legitimate, on-subject question, and I did not get an answer. I got a "six hours on Thursday." Well, we can't find anywhere in Hansard where this question was asked or answered.

Again, my question to this minister, which is legitimate…. There's a line item here for Trees for Tomorrow of $2 million this year and a project going forward. My question is: will any of this money find its way through the Ministry of Forests?

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is no.

B. Simpson: Second question. With this program, will there be an expectation of cost-sharing by any of the other participants?

Hon. K. Krueger: With trees, it's 50 percent.

B. Simpson: Here we have cash-strapped municipalities, school districts, hospitals that, in order to participate in this feel-good project of the Premier's, are going to have to now cough up 50 percent.

[1500]

Why doesn't the government, if they're going to go down this path, provide these trees for free for these entities, institutions and communities to go ahead and plant the trees? If the Premier is that keen on this project, why is it cost-shared?

Hon. K. Krueger: Hon. Chair, 112 applications.

B. Simpson: Are there any targeted funds for communities, schools, hospitals, etc., that have been devastated by the mountain pine beetle and need those trees to replace the trees that have been cut down or that they have lost?

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

B. Simpson: With respect to the first nations — and the minister has answered this today, but it's an explanatory answer I'm looking for — sharing this, will they also have to cost-share?

Hon. K. Krueger: I don't believe so, but we'll give the member a written answer.

B. Simpson: When will I see that written answer? This government and these ministers have a propensity to promise that in this House and never deliver outside. So can I have a date, please?

Hon. K. Krueger: By end of day today.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the minister's staff delivering on that.

With respect to other participants in this program, is there scope for unincorporated communities? They don't have taxation abilities. They don't have abilities to get additional money. Will unincorporated communities be able to access this without having to come up with the 50 percent cost-share?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes, through regional districts.

B. Simpson: With respect to the overall program here, as I understand it, this is a lift to this year's budget. Does the minister believe that this $2 million will actually be
[ Page 13895 ]
spent pre-end of fiscal this year — that there are enough programs in play, enough people can bring the 50 percent to the table to actually get the trees in the ground by March 31 of this year?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes.

B. Simpson: I'd like to talk to some horticulturalists about that around where I live, where the ground is still frozen and where there are problems with actually planting some of these trees. Are these all Lower Mainland ones that will have it in the ground by March 31?

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

B. Simpson: I am looking at the Hansard for that six-hour session in which the minister seems to have run out his enthusiasm for answering questions. I see nothing in here about the geographic location of any of these projects, so the minister did not answer this question. The question wasn't even asked, actually, if you say "asked and answered." Where, geographically, will this $2 million be spent?

[1505]

Hon. K. Krueger: Provincewide, but the money is being paid to communities, and they'll have it in their accounts.

H. Bains: I would like to ask a few questions specific to my community, the second-largest city in the province, the fastest-growing community in the province and the most diverse community, I would say, not only in British Columbia but perhaps in Canada.

There are some needs for our community, and I would like to ask some questions to the minister. First of all, what are the total grants that have been approved for the city of Surrey?

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered. We've given examples. Details will roll out over the next couple of weeks.

H. Bains: Can the minister tell us: what is the total amount that has been approved for city of Surrey?

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

B. Ralston: I rise on a point of order. I'm looking through the transcript of the proceedings on Thursday. I'm unable to find where that question was posed, and I'm unable to find any spot where it was answered. So I think, in my judgment, the minister is misleading the House.

Hon. K. Krueger: That's a serious charge, hon. Chair. I ask the member to withdraw it. I have answered in this House today that we have given a number of specific answers on Thursday, and I have no intention of working through the entire list of cities today. So that question has been asked and answered — a general answer, but answered.

B. Ralston: Well, the response…. I think it's drawn from American television perhaps — asked and answered. Nonetheless, that's the phrase the minister seems to want to use here.

The question that the member asked was a very specific one about the city of Surrey and the budget for the city of Surrey. I've looked through the Hansard of the day's proceedings on Thursday. I can't see that question anywhere there, and I don't see an answer to it.

When the minister says he's answered it, now he's qualifying…. He's shading his response now. He says he's answered it in a general sense, but his response was to a specific question. It wasn't asked, and it wasn't answered on Thursday. It wasn't asked, and it wasn't answered this morning.

I'd invite the Chair to make a ruling. The minister is misleading the House.

The Chair: Members, the Chair does not make a ruling on that in committee. The minister has said that he's not prepared to comment on individual grants, and I think we move on from there.

H. Bains: As I said in my opening remarks, we are talking about the second-largest city in the province, soon to be the largest in the province. We are talking about a city that is the fastest-growing….

The Chair: Excuse me, Member.

Hon. T. Christensen: Point of order. The member opposite suggested that the minister had misled the House. He was asked to withdraw that comment — and I haven't heard that he's done that yet — before we proceeded.

[1510]

The Chair: The Chair would only intervene if he had said "deliberately misled the House."

Continue, Member.

H. Bains: I thought, you know, we were in this…. When I got elected, I thought that we would go into this House, that we would have debates on an issue that is important to the cities and the communities that we represent.

We would get some answers from the people in authority, the minister, that we can take back to our communities and provide those answers and the information that they deserve. These are the taxpayers who
[ Page 13896 ]
are paying the minister's salary, my salary and everyone else's salary.

I think it's incumbent upon all of us to be responsible to those taxpayers who are actually upholding and expecting that we would respect them and that we will respect the traditions of this House. Part of that tradition is to answer some questions, when it comes to allocating funds to the communities.

So my question, again, is not in general terms. It's specifically asking about Surrey. How much in total grants has been approved for the city of Surrey? I looked at and read Hansard last week. Questions were asked by my colleague for Delta North about what is the largest grant that has been granted. The minister answered: "It's in Vancouver — $15 million."

I'm asking about Surrey, the second-largest city. Can the minister tell this House — he was able to give the numbers for Vancouver — what the numbers are for the city of Surrey?

Hon. K. Krueger: That's been answered. I've given all the detail that is going to be forthcoming today.

H. Bains: Like I said, I read Hansard. That question about Surrey — the total grant question — has never been asked in this House during these estimates and never been answered.

So I'm asking one more time. What is the total grant for the city of Surrey that has been approved?

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Members, I would like, please, to point out that this is what the rule book calls becoming tedious, and perhaps we can move on to new lines of questioning.

H. Bains: What I gather from here is that the minister has refused to answer that question. The minister said he has answered that question. This question has never been asked. Go through the Hansard.

I hope if the minister is insisting that that question was asked and that he answered that question…. Will the minister then correct himself in the next sitting and come back and tell us where the question was asked? When did he answer that question? And if that wasn't asked and wasn't answered, will he come back and apologize?

Hon. K. Krueger: The member has my answer.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member. Order, Member.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, Member.

Interjection.

The Chair: Sit down, Member. If the member for Nelson-Creston does not show respect for the Chair, I will have to ask him to leave the chamber.

Continue, Member.

H. Bains: I'd just like to remind the member that with close to 400,000 population in the city of Surrey, we are looking at…. That represents something like 13 percent of the total population of the province.

My question is, so that I can take it back…. And many of them are listening, and they're watching the minister. They're waiting for his answers. They have made some applications.

Perhaps the minister can tell us how many total applications the city of Surrey has actually made?

[1515]

Hon. K. Krueger: No further detail today. Communities are getting letters shortly.

H. Bains: So the minister expects us to vote for these estimates without giving us any answers — no details? This minister is saying that the details are coming? What are we doing here? What's he doing here in this House? Your job is to answer some questions.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, Members. Order.

Continue, Member.

H. Bains: If I feel frustrated, it is because I am. It is because of the inaction. And unanswered by this minister — questions that are legitimate questions.

These are not fictitious. They are not something that we are pulling out of the air. These are the questions that our taxpayers — our constituents, actually — are expecting answers to from this minister. The minister is refusing to answer those questions.

I think that is an insult to this House. It's an insult to the taxpayers. More importantly, it is insulting to the taxpayers who, like I said, are paying the minister's wages. He chose to sit there and stand up and not answer any questions and thinks that he deserves those wages. Perhaps he should not take pay for today for not doing his job.
[ Page 13897 ]

Let me ask another way, if there's any willingness from the minister to answer this question. There are a number of applications made, and the minister refused to answer how many applications are made. Can the minister advise this House, and perhaps more importantly advise the taxpayers, how many of those applications exactly have been denied?

Hon. K. Krueger: No denials.

H. Bains: Can I ask the minister, then, what percentage of the total value has been approved?

Hon. K. Krueger: The member should read Thursday's record.

H. Bains: Again, about Surrey, that question wasn't asked. This minister continues — and I will say continues — to choose not to be upfront and come clean with the answers that taxpayers deserve.

My question was: based on the total number of applications made by the city of Surrey — I'm not talking about a general question — what percentage of the total value of those applications has been approved, in dollars?

Hon. K. Krueger: The member says he's not talking about general questions. I talked about specific answers Thursday and not today.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

H. Bains: Obviously, by the admittance by this minister with the last answer, he has been ordered not to answer in this House by, perhaps, his boss, perhaps by the Premier. Now, can the minister tell us whether that is the situation, whether he has been told not to answer questions here today but only on Thursday? Because his fingers have been rapped because he answered and spoke too much on Thursday? Perhaps that's the situation here.

Maybe let me ask you: what was the total value of those applications? I mean, that's the answer at least — total value of those applications. When the city put the applications in and each of the applications that they have has a value of the project that they are asking funding for. So there's a total number that they are asking from the minister that should be going to the city of Surrey. Can the minister tell us what is the total value and how much of that has been approved so that we can figure out how much has been denied?

[1520]

Hon. K. Krueger: The member should read the record.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

C. Evans: It seems to me that what's going on here is very complicated for the folks at home to understand. So my question to the minister will be to attempt to explain what I think is going on and then ask the minister if it's correct. That goes for you folks up there too. I'm sure it's kind of weird. Some of us are behaving in an unusual manner because we're kind of grumpy, and you wonder what's going on, so I'm going to try and explain it.

The Chair: Member. Member.

C. Evans: Yeah?

The Chair: Please address the Chair — all direction to the Chair.

C. Evans: That's right. That's right. I'm not allowed to talk to you except through this lovely gentleman here.

Folks, here's what I think is going on. About a week or so ago the government brought in a budget, and the Minister of Finance read it out, and it sounded benign. The whole world is collapsing economically, but the budget said: "Oh, it's going to be okay. Hardly any cuts anywhere. All the ministries will be intact, and we'll just have a little deficit — half a billion dollars — and things are pretty good."

I left that budget speech feeling like British Columbia is in pretty good shape. I'm speaking to the estimates of the hon. minister. Then over the next — what? — 24, 36 hours, people started reading the fine print, and it started looking like there were massive cuts to the arts and to culture and to agriculture and to the things that some of us care about, but they were put off until year 2 or year 3. It started looking like the budget that we saw on budget day was kind of a sham.

Because I believe in this process, I am speaking to the estimates of the hon. minister. I am saying what I think is going on, and then I will say: "Is that true, Minister?" That's the nature of my question, and you'll remember, I get 20 minutes to say what I think is going on.

Speaking to the estimates of the hon. minister, 36 hours later when we read the fine print, it appeared as if the budget was nonsense, and that is offensive to me, because that would assume this process is nonsense. But then something even weirder than that happened. The government came in and said: "Oh, by the way, even though there's only a half-billion-dollar deficit and even though everything's going to be okay, we need a couple of hundred million dollars today to get it through the next 60 days so we can have an election."

This minister's estimates are part of that — what? — $180 million, $200 million extra that was brought in here after we were told that everything was okay, and 36 hours later we found out the budget was bogus. So the
[ Page 13898 ]
hon. members are trying to find out what you're going to do with 180 million bucks in the next 60 days, while we think you're going to go around and pass it out town to town to try and elect a bunch of members who won't tell the truth in the budget.

Now, hon. Chair….

The Chair: Member, Member.

C. Evans: I withdraw the statement that they won't tell the truth, and I substitute: "have chosen not to see it my way."

The Chair: Member, that's fine. Thank you.

I would like you to direct your comments to the supplementary estimates.

C. Evans: The estimates of this….

The Chair: The supplementary….

C. Evans: Got it — absolutely. Yes. Anything else you'd like to say, sir?

So this minister is the minister who's in charge of largesse. This is the minister who gives out money to municipalities — your money, folks at home. This is the minister who passes it out in the election year 60 days before they go to the polls, and these members are trying to find out where it's going. More than that, because it's a democracy, they're trying to find out if it's going fairly. They're trying to find out if what the folks in Surrey asked for is anything like what they're going to get.

These are fair questions. Even if the hon. minister is proud of what he did, in a democracy it's fair to get to ask and answer the questions before they pay their taxes. There have been revolutions fought on the notion that the people have the right to ask the question and get the answer before they pay their taxes. They chucked a bunch of tea overboard one time.

[1525]

The Premier of the province of British Columbia, the Social Credit antecedent to the hon. minister there, said: "Not a dime without estimates." And then what's happening here….

I've worked here for a long time. I've worked here so long I'm bald on top, and I'm pretty old. And I don't remember ministers sitting in their chair and saying: "I told you yesterday." Sixty days — 60 days before an election.

I think, because the minister is a decent and fine man, he came in here last week and did his job. Members got up and asked questions, and he answered honestly, as best he could. Staff sat next to him, helped him with the answers, and he got up, and he gave the answer. And somebody, somewhere, who doesn't work here, who isn't actually elected, who gets paid money to do strategy, to manipulate these people and you and the process, hon. Chair, that you represent told him to go in there and shut this place….

The Chair: Member. Member.

C. Evans: What?

The Chair: I would like you….

C. Evans: Sir. What, sir?

The Chair: Please show respect for the Chair.

C. Evans: Yes, sir.

The Chair: I am the Chair — okay?

C. Evans: Got it.

The Chair: Now, you made a statement I would like you to withdraw.

C. Evans: Any one. What did I say? I said somebody told the minister. Is that what you didn't like?

The Chair: Yes.

C. Evans: Okay. Hon. Chair, you're right. I suspect, because I believe the minister to be an honourable gentleman, that someone might have told….

The Chair: Withdraw the statement.

Interjection.

C. Evans: Okay. You're absolutely…. I withdraw. I'm just not sure what I'm withdrawing, hon. Member.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. All Members.

Member for Nelson-Creston, please take your seat.

Minister. Minister.

Okay, I would like for every member of this House to show respect for the chamber that we're in. I would like all members to respect the person who has the floor so that he can do it. I would like to remind members that it's the tone, as well, that shows respect for this House in the presentation and that we have to respect each other if we're going to move ahead.

So I'm going to ask the member for Nelson-Creston to continue.

Interjections.
[ Page 13899 ]

C. Evans: Hang on, you guys. I totally agree with what the Chair says. I love this place.

I would like to point out, hon. Chair, that I sit gently, quietly in my chair 99 percent of the time. This little moment is generated by something I'm not used to, which is, or appears to be, a minister refusing to tell the member that represents the people of Surrey what they asked for and what they're going to get.

Hon. Chair, I respect the process. It feels to me like a hon. minister holding a portfolio and refusing to answer the questions about it before the people pay their taxes…. It feels to me like that's a kind of disrespect. Is that acceptable to say? It certainly made me grumpy.

I would like to ask the Chair if I'm allowed to ask the minister whether his choice of answers today is his own or whether he was instructed to answer in this way. Is that a legitimate question?

The Chair: I want you to direct all your questions to the supplementary estimate to the minister.

C. Evans: Dealing solely with the supplementary estimates, because I believe the minister to be an honourable gentleman: could the minister tell me whether his answers related to the supplementary estimates given briefly or not at all today are his own decision or whether he was instructed to answer in that fashion?

Hon. K. Krueger: Repetitive questioning.

[Interruption.]

The Chair: Wait.

Sergeant-at-Arms, please remove that person.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Members. Order. Order, Members.

Nelson-Creston, please take your seat.

The House will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:44 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

C. Evans: It's my understanding that I have 36 seconds left on my last question, and I assure you that I will be finished.

I want to say that contrary to any imagination that I demean this House, it's my very respect for this process, my belief in estimates, that makes me think it has to be run in a fair manner.

Hon. Chair, I think British Columbian politicians don't steal and civil servants don't steal, unlike in other countries, because of estimates, because of this process. Sometimes it's onerous. I was the Minister of Health once upon a time, and the questions went till two days, three days a week, but the onerousness guarantees the integrity.

[1545]

That's where honesty comes from. That's the way that the opposition fulfils its role, and that is the role of the hon. minister. That's why they call him "the honourable."

Hon. Chair, I will take my seat because I think I'm a little too grumpy to participate in a healthy way. I would ask you and the government to participate in the way that we designed this House, and then I guarantee you I won't lose my temper.

H. Bains: Now that we have had a short break — this House has — and we all had some time to reflect back to our actions in this House for the past couple of hours, hopefully we will be getting some constructive debate going again and getting some information and answers for the taxpayers that sent us here.

The Chair: Member, if I could remind you to direct all your questions to the supplementary estimates that are taking place right now.

H. Bains: Of course, hon. Chair.

And we would have some questions on behalf of the communities that we represent, and we would get some answers. Having said that, I will try to get some of the information and some of the answers that I asked to the question I posed earlier on.

On behalf of 450,000 citizens of Surrey, I ask this minister one more time. How many total applications have been received by the minister under these estimates?

Hon. K. Krueger: I'm going to try and find some middle ground between not repeating things that I went over a lot on Thursday, yet trying to assist the members opposite. When I mentioned earlier that these questions had been answered specifically last Thursday, I had hoped that by giving some examples, it would be clear to the opposition the details of the specific programs.

Towns for Tomorrow is not a program that a city the size of Surrey would have any applications in for, and the reasons are clearly outlined in Thursday's Hansard. A carbon tax rebate is something that all the communities, we expect, will be applying for. They'll sign on to the climate action plan, and they'll get their rebate for their direct expenses on carbon tax through fuels that those cities applied for. Those are all in process. I mentioned that last week.

LocalMotion is a program that communities of any size can apply for. We have one application from Surrey. Trees for Tomorrow is a program that any community can apply for. We have one application in from Surrey
[ Page 13900 ]
for Trees for Tomorrow. We wouldn't expect more than one, necessarily, from any…. We would only be able to provide one under LocalMotion — which is, as one of the members reiterated today, oversubscribed.

We can't yet give dollar figures for what the awards will be to Surrey under Trees for Tomorrow or LocalMotion, because those processes are still underway. I can tell the member, as I did a number of his colleagues, the amount of money that will be forthcoming to the community from traffic fine revenue-sharing, and it is $6,392,552.

H. Bains: In order to speed things along, maybe I'll ask some specific questions about the total dollar amount.

Last week Delta knew exactly how much they will be getting in total, and the Vancouver figure was given, something like $15 million. Can the minister tell us: what is the total amount that Surrey will be getting?

[1550]

Hon. K. Krueger: This column that I just gave the member the answer from is the same column those answers came from. None of those answers included specifics about Towns for Tomorrow or Trees for Tomorrow.

Some of the questions that the member was asking about earlier — major intersection, major road improvements, those sorts of things…. Well, at least I think the member was asking about specific roads. Those would be the Building Canada infrastructure fund, which is not a subject of these supplemental estimates.

H. Bains: I don't know what is so difficult. The answer for Vancouver was given last week — $15 million. The answer for Delta was given — $1.9 million. Why is the city of Surrey not given the answer that the other cities have already got? My question, one more time: what is the total amount that has been approved for the city of Surrey?

Hon. K. Krueger: The member clearly didn't understand my answer. The answer given to Vancouver, which was $15,723,893, is traffic fine revenue-sharing money, and so is the answer that I just gave the member about Surrey. It's apples to apples. It's the very same thing.

These large cities don't qualify for small community grants, which are included in this supplemental estimate, and I've already talked about the other programs. The Vancouver and Surrey portions are different, and I explained on Thursday how they're arrived at. I put the details of that on the record for the member.

J. Horgan: I will, for the minister's benefit, be continuing on in the vein of my other colleagues here. I'm seeking specifically any applications that have been approved in the city of Langford, the district of Metchosin, the district of Sooke and the district of Highlands.

Hon. K. Krueger: Highlands — the small community grant that will be received is $458,973. Langford — its traffic fine revenue-sharing is $267,185. Metchosin — the small community grant is $655,876. Sooke has a small community grant and traffic fine revenue-sharing totalling $579,174.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for those details. I'm wondering, though, as others have asked, if there is an inventory of applications for the various programs — Towns for Tomorrow, LocalMotion, Trees for Tomorrow. Is the minister able to break down, by those four communities, those initiatives that are covered by this vote?

[1555]

Hon. K. Krueger: My officials are working through the tables. I'll remind the House that last week I gave the numbers of how many applications are before us for the individual programs — Towns for Tomorrow, LocalMotion and so on. It's going to take a lot of the House's time to work through those one at a time, but we can. One of my officials is checking for Towns for Tomorrow details for the member, and the other for LocalMotion details.

In the meantime, I had responded to the critic on the question of Trees for Tomorrow — I think it was the critic — and said that we'd get the answer back in writing by tonight. I've got the answer for him now, so I'll just put it on the record while we're waiting. The answer is yes, first nations who've made applications under the Trees for Tomorrow program will be contributing 50 percent of the cost, just as other communities.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister and his staff for a commitment to get back, perhaps this week, with the details by those communities by program. That would be outstanding if he could do that.

I just have a last question, and it has to do with the capital regional district. Within the capital regional district my electoral area representative is one person representing disparate communities from East Sooke to Port Renfrew.

I'm wondering if the minister could inform me, with the benefit of his staff, how the electoral areas fare in these processes. Do they have to go through the capital regional district? Is the electoral area rep able to initiate any of these grant applications on his own? What's the process? Were any successful applications received or granted?

Hon. K. Krueger: Electoral areas can make application through their regional districts. There is one from the member's area, and that's Port Renfrew. It has to do with fire protection.

I understood the member to say that he'd be content with an e-mail or a letter about the other question he asked.
[ Page 13901 ]

G. Gentner: Just a few quick questions, and we'll wrap up, I presume. I have to begin by suggesting that perhaps even the House Leader on the opposite side knows very well that during the Nisga'a debate…. I think we were intensely involved in a debate that lasted for almost six months, night and day. I really wonder how taxing it was back then for the government of the day and the ministers responsible to take on a siege or a huge amount of questions hurled their way.

I just want to go back quickly. I'm not here to repeat any questions, and I appreciate and thank the minister for his due diligence and answers last week relative to, I believe, the $1.92 million that Delta is going to receive.

The question I had asked was on the shovel-ready community projects. Municipalities thought that they had bent the ear of the government opposite successfully to achieve all that. I took the liberty today to talk to Her Worship Mayor Jackson on where that $1.92 million was to go, and she really didn't have an idea of what it was going to, where it was going to go. My question to her was: "Where did you think it was going to go, and where do you think the government expects it to go?"

The minister has been talking about public safety and, for example, money going to go towards firefighting or fire protection. She had suggested that there is one area in our community and probably in a lot of urban communities if not all over the province. That was the downfall of Neighbourhood Watch, Block Watch. In light of the gang warfare that's happening…. I know that for years it was part of the Solicitor General funding, but there was an appeal made that this money has got to come from somewhere.

[1600]

The point is that under the supplementary budget, there's no extra money allocated from the Solicitor General. Regarding the situation — the minister will appreciate this — whereby some family values in the urban setting are changing in the society. We have parent advisory committees that can't meet. This week, I remind the minister, is known as Anti-Bullying Week, so to speak. Again, we're seeing a terrible situation on the streets.

My question to the minister is: how much of this money is going to go towards communities so they can do the due diligence into what has always been successful? You know, you post a sign on your front doorstep, and if a child is being harassed, he or she knows where to go for assistance. Is any of this money going to help communities with their neighbourhood or Block Watch programs?

Hon. K. Krueger: We truly want communities to have autonomy in this area. We think that public safety, crime prevention — those sorts of programs — are tremendously effective. All of the programs that the member mentioned…. He mentioned Block Watch and Community Watch. There's also, of course, community policing, Citizens Watch. All of those are perfectly legitimate recipients of traffic fine revenue-sharing.

It's up to the local communities. Some communities choose to hire more police officers. That amount of money would cover the salaries of quite a number, a significant extra contingent.

We've seen those programs be very successful in various communities. By all means, if that's what the mayor and council of Delta choose, more power to them.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister some questions about the amounts in this fund that are attributed and have been approved for the district of Saanich, the city of Victoria and Oak Bay municipality.

Hon. K. Krueger: District of Saanich. The amount is $1,735,188. Oak Bay. It's a combination of traffic fine revenue-sharing and small community grant, and the total is $498,943. The city of Victoria. It's traffic fine revenue-sharing — $2,487,380.

R. Fleming: The minister mentioned the breakdown for Oak Bay municipality — that there's a combination of revenue sources there. I'm wondering if he could tell me which come from the revenue-sharing program for traffic fines and the other program he mentioned.

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes. The traffic fine revenue portion is $299,424. The small community grant for which that municipality qualifies is $199,519.

R. Fleming: I'd like to ask the minister about the awards within this funding envelope, to Saanich and Victoria in particular, around public safety and what applications have been made and given a successful green-light indication from the minister.

[1605]

Hon. K. Krueger: Again, we don't presume to direct municipalities about which programs and opportunities they choose to fund from traffic fine revenue-sharing. The emphasis, we trust, will be on community safety.

We're asking — because we are putting this money into accounts right now, and it's going to be spent subsequently, obviously — for a plan that doesn't have to be very labour-intensive. We'd like a plan of what they're going to do, and then we're asking for a community signature so that there will be a reporting to the public of how the money was spent. But the community is free to choose its own priorities, as I answered the previous member.

R. Fleming: Chair, I would like to ask the minister if he is aware, and what his opinion might be, of instances where municipalities — perhaps these three: Saanich,
[ Page 13902 ]
Victoria and Oak Bay — are taking these revenue grants and using them to address local pressures they may have on property tax increases that they have for their tax base.

Is he aware of instances where public safety dollars — revenues earned from traffic fine revenues that are now returned by the province to those municipalities — are being used to shield or address property tax pressures that those municipalities have?

Hon. K. Krueger: Communities have been reporting to the province all along. The reporting we have indicates that the focus is very much on community safety, and many times it's actually on policing.

R. Fleming: I would like the minister to maybe elaborate on that answer, because I'm sure he's aware of instances where some of those dollars haven't been directed to public safety programs or to policing. In fact, I can recall instances where municipalities have gone on the record to say that they're not in a position or would not be complying with whatever wish the government may have in that regard.

I would like to know from the minister if there is any kind of reconciling from moneys invested in the types of programs that his office is putting out as the parameters for these revenues.

Hon. K. Krueger: On our website are the reports that we've received from communities. I personally don't know of any examples of communities using these funds for any purpose that we would consider irresponsible. I'll give the member some examples of specifically what communities have reported to us. They seem to put the traffic fine revenues to very good use.

Over 560 more officers on the streets than there would have been without traffic fine revenues, outreach services for youth, crystal meth awareness programs, all sorts of innovative projects.

We have a very good relationship with local governments, and as I mentioned on Thursday, we had committed before we became government that we would provide 75 percent of traffic fine revenues to communities. We decided to make it 100 percent, and that's what we've been doing. We're very pleased with what we see, and I don't know of any such examples.

R. Fleming: I would like to ask the minister if he can tell me if his office has found favourably applications from the capital regional district and some of the municipalities I've mentioned for the CRD's bike and pathway project, which is parallel to the E&N Railway.

[1610]

There is a public safety component to that in relation to what goes on there now — as well as the Kinsol Trestle project, which to my knowledge has not received any positive response for funding from this government.

I'd also like to ask him to see if, in his ministry, there has been any consideration of Bay Street bridge improvements that are related to safety — and the Johnson Street Bridge as well.

A project that also has a public safety element to it, which is in an inner-city neighbourhood of Victoria — which has been turned down, even though the federal government has approved it previously through the Canada-B.C. municipal infrastructure fund — has to do with the artificial field revitalization project at Victoria High School.

Hon. K. Krueger: As I've mentioned to some of the member's colleagues and on the record in this House, these supplemental estimates don't deal with the Building Canada infrastructure program — only the ones that I've already outlined.

I will mention that we recognize a couple of the projects that the member asked about, which have already received funding in other ways. The E&N Railway, for example, has received money from the gas tax fund. Kinsol has received money through LocalMotion two years ago.

The applications that are before the LocalMotion fund presently total $26 million, and there's only $10 million left in the budget. The civil service has been working through the applications, grading them according to the criteria. We have committed to communities that everybody will have an answer, positive or otherwise, by March 16.

J. Brar: A few minutes ago the minister was responding to my colleague from Surrey-Newton. One of the questions, I think, said that the city of Vancouver will get about $15 million under the traffic fine revenue-sharing formula. Compared to that, the city of Surrey will get around $6 million, which I hope is the accurate figure.

The city of Surrey is the second-largest city in the province, very close to Vancouver when we talk about the population. I would like to ask the minister why, when Vancouver is getting $15 million, the city of Surrey is getting only $6 million.

Hon. K. Krueger: This was answered. It's on the record for last Thursday.

Just in a nutshell, community receives a share of the total traffic fine revenues that come into the province. That is the same percentage share as what they spend on policing, as a percentage of the total of what's spent on policing in the province. So that's the way the numbers come out for Surrey and Vancouver on the formula. The member can check that in Hansard, and we'll write him a letter to answer any questions.

If the mayor has any objection, we'd want to know about that. We believe those are the right numbers.
[ Page 13903 ]

J. Brar: Thanks for the answer. We will certainly check the information and speak to the mayor on this issue as well.

[1615]

My understanding is that the traffic revenue-sharing formula is based on public safety. I think the key purpose of that money is to provide or enhance public safety. I understand the minister is saying it is up to the local government to decide what they want to do.

Keeping in mind the promise the Premier made a few days ago to send a strong message to the gangs and keeping in mind the gang violence we have in the streets of British Columbia, is there any expectation from the minister's office that this money should be used to hire more police officers to make sure that we deal with the gang violence?

Hon. K. Krueger: We would be very pleased to see the money devoted to that effort. We're wholeheartedly behind the effort. It might be helpful to the member if I mention that the amount I mentioned for Surrey is the second-largest amount out of traffic fine revenue after the city of Vancouver. That's a horrific problem. It wouldn't surprise anyone if council chooses to make that their priority for traffic fine revenue-sharing. We'd be very pleased with that decision.

M. Karagianis: If I may restate my earlier question to the minister. I'll actually add a couple of other questions to that and make it easy for just a single answer.

I'm interested to know what, if any, applications the communities of Colwood, View Royal and Esquimalt have made. I do know that Esquimalt has, in the past, qualified for traffic fine dollars. They are generally always dedicated 100 percent to the amalgamated police force of Victoria and Esquimalt.

I'm curious to know whether there would be additional dollars above and beyond that which is normally dedicated to that police force, which the community might be able to take advantage of.

Given the fact that there is one corner of my current constituency of Metchosin that is under rural policing, it has for some time been concerned about the new policy where they have to pay and whether or not some of these dollars under the umbrella of the community safety would in fact go to these small rural communities, as well, to help offset costs, much like the traffic revenue does.

There are a number of questions in there, and hopefully the minister will find that easier to answer.

Hon. K. Krueger: On the question of who has applied, one of the member's colleagues was gracious about saying we could provide the answer in writing. It will take a fair amount of time. I see the member nodding, so we'll do that.

On the question of revenues, Colwood will receive a total of $437,621, of which $122,354 is traffic fine revenue-sharing. The balance is small community grant. That's $315,268.

Esquimalt will receive a total of $686,006, of which $407,918 is traffic fine revenue-sharing. The small community grant is $278,087.

Metchosin qualifies for a small community grant of $655,876. With regard to the question of traffic fine revenue-sharing for rural communities, the province pays for the policing in rural communities. Therefore, they do not qualify for traffic fine revenue-sharing.

G. Coons: Most of the questions that I had earlier…. You answered some of them and referred me to Hansard for some others. I'd like to fill in the blanks, if that's okay.

[1620]

The first question I have is the $133 million, because there's $70 million from the traffic fines and $63 million from small community grants. The number that you're reading out, that $133 million — is that the total allocation and it's all been allocated?

Hon. K. Krueger: I want to compliment the member on his due diligence, because to me it was a thing of beauty that he had so many of the answers that I had given last Thursday. Obviously, he spent some time reading Hansard, and it's great.

He's right. These two funds, the small community grants fund and the traffic fine revenue-sharing fund, add to $133 million. So $70 million of that is traffic fine revenue-sharing, and $63 million is small community grants.

G. Coons: It's all been allocated in the amounts you're giving. That's what I'm assuming.

I'm just wondering, as far as the funding envelope — because we're on this — if I could get the amounts that are going to a couple of regional districts in my region, the Skeena–Queen Charlotte and the Central Coast, and a couple of communities. I'll list the four from Queen Charlottes — Masset, Port Clements, Queen Charlotte and Sandspit — and then a couple of other communities — Prince Rupert, Port Edward and Stewart. That would be nine that I'm looking for.

Hon. K. Krueger: This member assisted us by e-mailing this question, and the answer is: Masset — small community grant of $535,296; Port Clements — $529,359; Port Edward — $397,267.

Prince Rupert does qualify for traffic fine revenue-sharing, so their small community grant is $429,834. Their traffic fine revenue share is $251,705. The total payment, total stimulus payment — $681,539.

Queen Charlotte City — $486,268, small community grant. Stewart — $484,706, small community grant.
[ Page 13904 ]
And the two regional districts that the member asked about — Central Coast, $260,347, small community grant; and Skeena–Queen Charlotte, exactly the same — $260,347.

N. Macdonald: The communities, the municipalities that I represent — Revelstoke, Golden, Radium, Invermere, Canal Flats and Kimberley…. As well, I have some from the Columbia-Shuswap regional district, Field to Edgewater; the regional district of East Kootenay — actually, Edgewater would be with that — Brisco, Spillamacheen, Fort Steele, Wasa, Skookumchuck.

I wonder if the minister could break down the total amount for each community and then break down the funding program that the funds are received from.

Hon. K. Krueger: The numbers are by local government — so regional districts and communities, but not specific rural areas. That's quite a few, and I wonder if the member would settle for an answer by e-mail, if we can get it to him by sometime tomorrow.

Vote 22(S): ministry operations, $186,000,000 — approved.

Supplementary Estimates:
ministry of advanced education
and labour market development

On Vote 23(S): B.C. Public Service Agency, $40,000,000.

Hon. M. Coell: This issue is regarding the long-term disability plan of the province. The plan is a negotiated benefit available to all public service employees and provides claims, administration and case management services to the participating employers or plan sponsors and employees with approved claims.

[1625]

Just a bit of background. The province of British Columbia's long-term disability plan requires funding of $40 million to address unforeseen investment losses within the plan and to address the increase in valuation of the plan's future liabilities.

Accounting policy requires the province to record the overall value of the plan in public accounts at March 31 each year. A decrease in the value of the plan triggers an expense for the province against the Public Service Agency vote.

The plan holds investment assets which were reported at $328 million on March 31, 2008. The recent market volatility has decreased the value of these assets, leading to our request today for $40 million to address those known investment losses.

The investments, of course, are managed by the B.C. Investment Management Corporation. I'd be pleased to answer any questions.

R. Fleming: The supplementary estimate amount being asked by this ministry — I couldn't help but note — was almost identical to the projected deficits that most of our post-secondary institutions are experiencing in this current fiscal year because of the unexpected 2.6 percent cut in the core funding earlier this year that was unanticipated against the three-year budget plan.

I appreciate that the minister has introduced something that is solely to do with the long-term disability fund that is managed by the IMC, which has experienced what sound like very significant market losses this year.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

I wanted to ask the minister, I think, as a first question…. Part of his statement was about the actuarial valuation currently. I couldn't find it on the Web, and the parliamentary library here didn't have a copy of it either. The most recent report of the public service benefit plan was dated February 1, 2008.

It covers the previous fiscal year, not the one that the supplementary estimates we're debating today cover, so it hasn't been the most reliable guidepost to see exactly how this sum has been arrived at.

I also appreciate that this has only recently been transferred to the minister's portfolio from another ministry. Perhaps I could ask him: where is the most recent report that details some of the pressures that obviously this request for more money from the House today is coming from?

[1630]

Hon. M. Coell: The BCIMC manages this for us. They track it during the year, show pressures — where there is — on the actuarial variations. There is a pressure of about $8 million on that. That would probably be more people coming into the system. The other would be losses to the account. They make a recommendation to us based on their tracking.

R. Fleming: We had a report last year from the same agency dated February 1, 2008. We're a few weeks beyond that this year. The minister has come to the Legislature asking for $40 million to supplement the disability fund and the liabilities there.

I would ask him if there is a report available from the fund manager. If there is, would he table it in the Legislature?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member is reading from the annual report of last year. The annual report for this year is just coming out later this month.

R. Fleming: Is there a draft copy that the minister could provide to at least give all of the legislators here an idea of what some of the pressures are, not in his own
[ Page 13905 ]
words, but in those we entrust to manage the financial assets and benefit plans and pension plans of the public service?

Hon. M. Coell: I believe all that will be in the annual report that's due out shortly.

R. Fleming: I was asking the minister if he would share the draft report, at least the section pertaining to the money that you're asking for approval of today, with the House so that we can scrutinize and examine it and ask questions related to descriptions you've provided so far, which detail how $40 million breaks down into segments of $8 million and $32 million losses.

I think that's a reasonable request. I wonder if the minister and the people who are ably helping him today could provide that to the House.

Hon. M. Coell: It's not usual to release a draft annual report before it's tabled in the House.

R. Fleming: I would submit that it's probably not usual to come to the Legislative Assembly requesting a $40 million sum without allowing some information that is more than 50 words long that we see in the supplementary estimates description of what this voted additional appropriation is for.

I think that, given the extraordinary circumstance and the request to cover the losses of this area that is now in the minister's area of responsibility, I would ask him, again, if he could submit to the House the sections that relate to the disability fund and the $40 million that he's requesting this afternoon.

Hon. M. Coell: I appreciate the question. I think the fact that this is a negotiated settlement with our employees and that any changes in the value of the plan automatically trigger government to cover those costs…. The recommended cost to us is $40 million.

B. Ralston: The valuation that was given by the minister a moment ago of the long-term disability plan pursuant to the Public Service Benefit Plan Act was $328 million. Can the minister tell the House what the value of the plan is now.

[1635]

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, the planned assets last year were $38 million. We're asking for $40 million to address the losses and also the changes in actuarial valuations.

B. Ralston: Obviously, I misunderstood the minister or my note is incorrect. Is that $32.8 million, then? Is that what the minister was referring to? There was a number; $328 million was the value in the plan as of March 31, 2008.

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, it's $328 million.

B. Ralston: So the value of the plan, then, has declined $38 million? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. M. Coell: I apologize to the member if when I was speaking…. The plan holds investment assets which were reported at $328 million, and that was on March 31, 2008. The annual report will be coming out shortly, which will show the changes in that plan.

As the member knows, there have been fluctuating changes in all our plans over the last six months. What we're asking for is $40 million. In that $40 million there are some changes in the value of the actuarial valuations as well as some losses.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that clarification. At the point that this supplemental estimate was put together and forwarded to the Legislature for approval, can the minister tell the House what the value of the plan was? It's obviously no longer $328 million. There have been some losses.

Can the minister tell us the value of the plan at the point that the submission was made or the value today, just to give some sense of what the decline in value has been. There's a sum that's being asked for. I think at the very least the Legislature should be able to discern that the $40 million that's being asked for accords with the decline in value of the plan.

Hon. M. Coell: The reason I say we're asking for $40 million…. There have been fluctuating changes in this all year. The stock market today dropped by 350 points, I believe, in Canada, so we've had tremendous changes. We feel that the $40 million will give us the needed funds to buffet this important long-term disability plan for our employees.

B. Ralston: It's a publicly owned plan. It's publicly administered. It's jointly trusteed. It's in the public domain. Why won't the minister provides a number that tells us what the value of the plan is now?

In the report for year-end March 31, 2007, which was reported out at the beginning of February 2008, the value of the plan then was $328.92 million, with a net surplus of $44,044,108. That's in the report of last year.

I'm completely at a loss to understand why the minister will not simply tell the House what the value of the plan is. Is there some mystery to this? Is there some reason why it isn't being laid before the House? There is a request to vote here in the Legislature on $40 million. Why won't the minister simply tell us what the value of the plan is now?

[1640]
[ Page 13906 ]

Hon. M. Coell: The member should know that this plan has probably fluctuated greatly in the last six months. We will be having an annual report coming out from this. As the member already also knows, we follow GAAP in the province, so we have to book this against any losses. So we feel the $40 million will do that for us at this time.

R. Fleming: Again, on this side of the House the best we have to go with is the plan that ended fiscal March 31, 2007, to get a look at this investment fund. The $328 million in total assets at March 31, 2007, last year included $302 million that were investments. There were some receivables in there — employer contributions. There were some liabilities detailed as well — in particular, the accrued LTD benefits that have to be booked.

At the end of last year there was a net surplus of $44 million. So here we are looking a year later. I appreciate there has been all kinds of turmoil in the global markets where some of these funds are deposited, and I hope we can get some answers on exactly how that investment portfolio is split up.

But for the time being I have to ask the minister…. Looking at the big picture of the plan and how much money is invested and managed here by the IMC and the fact that there was a $44 million surplus booked into the plan last year, I need to ask the minister why this fiscal year the fund isn't being balanced and instead we're here in the Legislature asking for $40 million to put into the plan arising from "a recent actuarial valuation." If the minister could detail that, please.

Hon. M. Coell: I think the important thing for the member to know is that this plan is a negotiated agreement between government and its employees. One of those agreements is that we keep the plan whole, that if there are losses from time to time, they are addressed by government. Those losses can be stock market, as we've seen across government, or they can be actuarial changes. In this case there is a bit of both.

We'll continue to watch it through the year, and if it continues to change, we would bring the House up to speed on that and ask for a discussion or even more money if that was necessary.

R. Fleming: This year the minister is here because there were losses in the plan, and he's asking for the assembly to approve a sum of money to fix that scenario. Last year, as I mentioned, there was $44 million net earnings in the plan, and I'm wondering if the minister can tell this House what was done with that money.

Hon. M. Coell: As with most of the funds that are managed by BCIMC, if they have a surplus, it goes back into the plans that they manage.

R. Fleming: So if there was a $44 million surplus last year and the minister is here asking for $40 million to cover losses this year, does that mean that in a sense it's an $84 million swing on the plan in one year that could be considered losses in the plan?

Hon. M. Coell: The member may want to clarify for me. I believe the $328 million included the surpluses.

[1645]

R. Fleming: The way I read it is the net of investments and the liabilities — the surpluses — is after those are accounted for. If the minister could maybe clarify that….

That's not the question I want to ask at this moment, though. Because he said that this request of the assembly is the result of a negotiated agreement between the fund administrators, I want to ask him about employer contributions. I gather they have probably remained relatively steady over previous years. I've got some information, a five-year scan of the claims history in this plan. Of course, there have been some years where there have been bumps up and down in terms of the claims history, as one might imagine.

But for the employer contributions I only have one year of data. It suggests that it's somewhere around $25 million or $26 million annually. I want to ask the minister, even though he won't share the report that is probably complete or near complete for the latest fiscal year, if he could tell me what the employer contributions are this year and expected into the year in future.

Hon. M. Coell: Again, those are negotiated in collective agreements. What I would do is get that information going back five years for the member so he could see what employee contributions are as compared to government contributions.

R. Fleming: I would be most interested in the current year that we're discussing. We've been asking to have the report, which the minister confirms exists, in some format.

I would ask him, because he's so far declined to share it with the assembly — although I think it would be very valuable this afternoon, and I want to repeat that — if he could at least give members on this side of the House a date, approximately, of when he anticipates that document to be published, because as I noted earlier, it's already three weeks behind the publication date last year for that annual report.

Hon. M. Coell: That report has to be tabled in this House before the 31st of March. It's my desire to do that as soon as possible.

R. Fleming: Is "as soon as possible," then, closer to March 31 or closer to February 23? I wonder if the
[ Page 13907 ]
minister could maybe describe what's holding it back. I'm certain that it's not the supplementary estimates debate that we're engaging in this afternoon. There must be another reason. There must be some kind of final checking or sign-off that's occurring, and I'm sure he's apprised on a relatively frequent basis when these things are anticipated. If he could give not the obligation of when it must be tabled into the House but when he expects it to be available.

Hon. M. Coell: As I said to the member, it's my intention to have it tabled as soon as it possibly can be.

R. Fleming: Okay. Well, let's just hope it's not spring break. That would be really disappointing.

I want to ask the minister about the investment portfolio, the losses that he has given a number for but no details thus far or no specifics. In January last year there were a lot of reports around UBC, I think the Fraser Health Authority, the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, some other Crown entities that I'm maybe not mentioning, that experienced considerable losses on asset-based commercial paper. I think in the case of UBC, it was something like $29 million. I'm sure the Finance critic will correct me if I'm wrong.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: I'm sorry. It's considerably more than that.

[1650]

The point I'm making is that there were considerable losses on asset-based commercial paper. The report that we have available from the IMC suggests that these funds weren't involved in those kinds of investments. I want the minister to maybe confirm for the House whether or not these funds were invested in asset-backed commercial paper and whether they were affected by some of the write-downs that we saw in other parts of the public service.

Hon. M. Coell: My understanding is that BCIMC was not invested in asset-backed paper.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister to maybe describe, as best he can and as freely as he wishes, the reason we're in this situation. We were able to look at as many reports as we could in advance of this afternoon's debate — reports made available by the B.C. Public Service Agency, which he is responsible for — and none of them talked about a looming liability for the long-term disability plan specifically. It wasn't in any of the reports, updates that were made available to us and to the public.

But here we are in this session, interrupting budget debate to do exactly that — to find $40 million for this plan. It's taken a significant hit by the request that's being made. We've heard in percentage terms on $328 million just how large that is. It is quite significant — approaching 15 percent.

I want to ask the minister when he was first made aware of this problem, specifically with the long-term disability, and why it wasn't reported out in any fashion whatsoever. He says there have been negotiations amongst the parties to the benefit plan, but there has never been any discussion in the public realm about this extraordinary situation for this benefit plan. Maybe the minister can tell the House why.

Hon. M. Coell: The plan is really a long-term asset for our employees. I can give the member just an idea. The benefit provides for a continuance of income in the event of an eligible employee, participating with an employer, who becomes disabled due to injury or illness. The plan is managed by the Public Service Agency, with claim adjudication and claim administration services provided through the Great-West Life Assurance Co.

It's an asset that, over time, employees of the province have negotiated with the province. It does go up and down. That's why I suggested I would make available the last five years, so the member could see the changes within the plan. It's really a long-term asset. Because we use the accounting principles, GAAP, it allows that we show this publicly and that we address it. It really triggers the need for government to increase the funding it has in the plan.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister some questions about the changes to net assets in this plan. We have, in the information provided over a year ago, a breakdown of the increase in assets in the plan and the decrease in assets.

Now, the plan looks very healthy indeed on the issue of employer contributions. There was an increase in the asset value of this fund of $58 million in that fiscal year. That was the majority, approximately two and a half times greater than the investment income that was earned that year.

I want to ask the minister about the decrease in assets, because the disability benefits for that year, the drawdown on the fund, was only $35 million, so it's more than covered by employer contributions in that year. The change in actual liability for the plan benefits that year was only $11 million.

[1655]

I want to ask the minister: if it's the case that liability for plan benefits is now more of a cost driver on this plan than disability benefits themselves that are being paid out, has this fiscal year actually seen an excess of actuarial liability losses versus actual benefits paid to claimants?

Hon. M. Coell: As I mentioned, the plan, of course, came into existence through long-term negotiations
[ Page 13908 ]
and is fully funded now by the employer. That's why we have to…. There's a trigger that we have to keep the plan whole, I guess would be the way of describing it.

A number of changes, I guess, are happening. We have an aging workforce. We're doing a better job of getting people back to work now. Those all affect the plan asset value. I think the important thing to know is that there's an assessment done every three years on what some of the effects of an aging population are or the types of situations that our employees would find themselves in.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about the deficiency of income over disbursements from the plan, because last year it was actually in excess, so it was in a healthy position. It was a good year for the plan. This year it's apparently a different story. What the minister and the government are asking the Legislature for in terms of this approval, this supplementary estimate, isn't necessarily the same as the deficiency of the income over disbursements.

So I do want to ask the minister if he can tell me, because I know that figure is available to him, what the deficiency of income over disbursements was for the fiscal year that ended March 31, 2008.

Hon. M. Coell: I do apologize to the member, but I'm not sure I understand the question.

R. Fleming: I'm trying to get at the losses that the annual report, which hasn't been made available to us, may provide detail on. We have a report that's considerably older and that was released, covering a period of time when there was a lot more market stability for investors of all kinds and for our public funds and benefit plans.

For the year we're talking about now, the request is extraordinary. The minister hasn't indicated exactly how the losses have been accrued and what kind of hit the plan is taking. So I want to ask him: what is the deficiency expected over disbursements versus income for the plan? In other words, what size is the decrease in assets versus the increases, whatever they may have been, in the value of the asset?

Hon. M. Coell: I think I understand the question. This is an accounting arrangement in order to keep this plan whole. That's our obligation to our employees — that government keeps the plan whole if there are losses in any particular year. And the losses, obviously, do come from the stock market and investments that BCIMC has.

R. Fleming: In terms of the strategy to keep the plan whole, does the minister expect employer contributions to be increasing? If so, what kind of percentage are we looking at? What kind of driver is that on payroll? Because investment income is obviously a strategy lost to the government now. They have to account for less of that.

[1700]

Basically, the question is: going forward, are employer contributions going to supplement the $40 million that is, in a sense, bailing out the losses in this plan year?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the employer contribution is there. You could view this increase of $40 million as an employer contribution to the plan on top of what they've already paid during the year.

B. Ralston: I'm looking at the introduction to the supplementary estimates. This is the explanatory note. It says that the government's liability arises from "a recent actuarial valuation and the recent decline in the market value of investments supporting the plan." So I'm interested in asking some questions about the recent actuarial valuation.

Does the minister have a copy with him — it has obviously been completed — that he's prepared to table here?

Hon. M. Coell: No, I don't.

B. Ralston: Frankly, I find it surprising. This is a document that…. Government is asking for the legislative approval for this expenditure of $40 million. In the document is a mention of a report which apparently supports that request for $40 million. Yet the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia is not entitled to even have a look at it? I find that astonishing, and I think most ordinary people would find that astonishing.

Why won't the minister provide a copy of this actuarial valuation to the Legislative Assembly? It's being used to justify the expenditure that he's asking the assembly to approve.

Hon. M. Coell: What I said to the member is that I don't have it here with me. I could get it and give it to him tomorrow if he wishes.

B. Ralston: We made a search for it in the documents that are available to us publicly. It's apparently not public.

Can I suggest, Madam Chair, that we stand down briefly, take a brief recess while the minister goes back to his office and gets a copy of the report? He can share it with us, and we can proceed with questions thereafter.

Hon. M. Coell: I don't have that in my office. It would be in my staff's office, and it's five o'clock.

B. Ralston: I'm sure that arrangements could be made. A person as august in the government as a minister surely has some sway to have an office opened after hours to
[ Page 13909 ]
get a copy of a report, particularly when members of the Legislative Assembly are asking for it. So could the minister consult with his officials, and could we make that arrangement, please?

Hon. M. Coell: I will endeavour to see whether I can get that report from my office to you, but in no way should we stop debate. Keep asking your questions, please. I'm anxious to answer them.

B. Ralston: This line of questions is based on the report. You know, it is a bit surprising, given that there's a three-line justification for a sum of $40 million and the actuarial valuation is one of those, that the minister wouldn't have brought it with him. Once again, I suppose that's how things work around here.

I'm quite happy to give the minister a few minutes to make his telephone call or his e-mail, and we can proceed momentarily.

Hon. M. Coell: I am told that it's a 50-page report. I will have it faxed over to the member. It's an actuarial report. I'm sure he'll find it very interesting.

[1705]

B. Ralston: Well, it's obvious that the minister doesn't want to provide the report to the Legislature. Can the minister, then, summarize the report? At least give us the conclusions of the report. Ordinarily, in a report of that nature, a technical report, there's a management summary that's provided. I see one of the officials there referring to some paper, so perhaps there is a summary available that might be shared immediately with those of us on this side.

Hon. M. Coell: Many factors go into the calculations of an actuarial valuation. Some of these factors are known, while others are based on assumptions. Factors include things such as LTD claims, average age, average salary, average duration of LTD, value of investments, termination experience, retirement ages, contribution to employee benefits plans, claims and rehabilitation expenses. That's what you'll find in this report, and it'll be here shortly.

B. Ralston: Well, the issue of the effect of actuarial valuations upon pension plans is a live issue in the public and among those people who follow these things. Certainly, given declines in values of plans, an actuarial valuation that requires a calculation of the liabilities and the assets of a plan at any given time — certainly in the private sector required by the Ministry of Finance, the superintendent of financial institutions — is a live issue.

I have some appreciation, obviously not that of an actuary, of the complexity of those things yet the very importance of those things. Given that this is a public plan on behalf of public employees, funded by the public and being debated here in the Legislature, I think it's not much of an answer to say: "It's very complicated, and we'll get to you later."

Interjection.

B. Ralston: I do have 20 minutes each time I intervene, so if the minister wants to hear more and chooses not to respond, I'll continue.

I think the point is that it's supplementary estimates. Last year the Minister of Finance, not the present Minister of Finance, said that this is an important measure of accountability — that rather than using some procedures that were used in the past, the minister was obliged to come before the Legislature and justify the expenditure.

What we're asking here is for this expenditure of $40 million to be justified. The explanatory note refers to two things. One is an actuarial valuation, and another is a recent decline in the market value of the investments. So far, the minister has declined to give an answer to either leg of the justification that's sought.

A number of questions have been asked by my colleague. A dollar value of the market decline and the composition of the market decline haven't been given, and a request for the actual valuation hasn't been provided either.

Why does the minister feel that it's appropriate for the Legislative Assembly to consider this request without providing either of those documents or a more full explanation of the reason for the decline, the composition of the decline and the actual valuation? Can the minister explain why he's not prepared to provide an explanation in detail of either of those requests that the opposition has made?

Hon. M. Coell: I think it's simple. I think the member knows that annual financial reports are tabled first in this House, not discussed in draft.

R. Fleming: There was a suggestion by the minister a moment ago that there were a lot of things driving cost increases or the $40 million sum being requested today from the LTD benefit plan. He suggested that there were things like claim histories and managed costs within the plan and a whole number of things within the fund.

[1710]

But the request and the three lines available to us suggest only that the request is made in light of a recent actuarial valuation and a decline in the market value of investments supporting the plan.

I want to ask the minister to walk us through the investment portfolio. If he can tell me what the major categories are — the holdings of this plan, what kind of funds, where they're invested and which part of the
[ Page 13910 ]
portfolio has experienced the most heavy losses. I think that kind of background is of interest to taxpayers, to see how their benefit plans are invested.

One expects a high degree of caution and prudence in the investment of those plans, and this is a significant loss. There's a situation on the world market that is understandable for others, whether they're in the private or public sector, where this has been experienced.

But for the benefit of the House and for the benefit of members on both sides, I would like the minister to explain this afternoon where the major areas of loss were in the portfolio that the IMC manages for this benefit plan.

Hon. M. Coell: Those are excellent questions but would be better directed to the Minister of Finance during his estimates. I'm not responsible for those, other than the Public Service Agency and the long-term disability plan.

R. Fleming: I'm not sure if the minister just made an excellent case for why, perhaps, the Public Service Agency shouldn't have been transferred to his ministry in the first place, but it has been. The government has made that decision. He's now here before the Legislative Assembly today asking for $40 million, and he's not prepared to explain where the major areas of losses are in the investment fund of the LTD plan.

This is the minister's responsibility now, so one would expect him to come to the supplementary estimates process equipped with answers. I'm sure that some summary knowledge is available, as it has been on questions asked by my colleague, and I would ask him to at least detail with some specifics where the losses were experienced to the greatest degree in the portfolio.

I would expect that there were some parts of the plan that were shielded very well and others that were exposed to unforeseen or otherwise risks in the last year, and I'd appreciate as much information as the minister can give.

Hon. M. Coell: With all due respect, BCIMC does report to the Minister of Finance, and those questions would be excellent questions in his estimates.

R. Fleming: I would think that the minister now responsible for the Public Service Agency — where literally billions of dollars of benefits are his responsibility and are invested safely, we hope, but are experiencing some problems, as we see in the case this afternoon around the long-term disability benefit — would be on top of that file. It's his file now.

I understand the responsibility that the Minister of Finance retains in this regard, but responsibilities have also been transferred to this minister. So if he's saying this afternoon that he actually is totally unaware and has no knowledge of where these losses have come from, I guess my question is: why did he come to the House not equipped to answer questions about that? I would assume he's been briefed on this, because the entire Public Service Agency is overseen by this minister, and parts of the benefit plan that our public employees expect are experiencing losses.

Again to the minister: can he give, or ask his senior staff and management that are with him to give, a summary of where those losses were experienced within this benefit plan?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm sure the member does realize that I'm responsible for the Public Service Agency. The long-term disability plan is part of that. There is a gap that has been triggered by a loss that…. I'm suggesting how it can be filled. I guess the reality is BCIMC manages all assets of the government on behalf of government, but they report directly to the Finance Minister.

[1715]

R. Fleming: Then let me ask the minister: wouldn't he have some degree of curiosity — maybe even a sense of responsibility as the minister responsible for the Public Service Agency now, working with his colleague the Minister of Finance — to have some handle and some knowledge about where these losses are being experienced and why they're occurring before he comes here to the Legislature to ask for $40 million?

You know, you're involved in a strategy to get the Legislative Assembly to appropriate more money for this plan. This is under your purview now, Minister. My question again is: why has the minister not even apparently seen fit to inform himself as to why this plan and the Public Service Agency areas under his supervision are losing money?

Hon. M. Coell: One of the beauties of the parliamentary system is that we're given responsibilities for different ministries and different authorities. When one is clearly under another minister's purview — and BCIMC is totally under the purview of the Minister of Finance — it would be not a parliamentary practice for me to comment on it.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm having trouble — with respect, Madam Speaker — following what the minister is saying. There was a reorganization in 2008-2009, and there are a number of votes which were previously in other ministries, whether it's Vote 16 when it was in the Ministry of Attorney General; Vote 22, Ministry of Community Services; Vote 23, the B.C. Public Service Agency; Vote 24, Ministry of Economic Development; Vote 32, Ministry of Finance.

It says: "…reflects the impact of the government reorganization in the 2008-2009 fiscal year." So like it
[ Page 13911 ]
or not, this minister is responsible for this vote. Is the minister saying that it's not properly included, that somehow the organizational chart here is wrong, that he's not responsible? Is that what he's saying? Is the minister seriously saying that to this assembly? Does he want to answer that question?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm responsible for this vote — the spending and administration of this vote. The Minister of Finance is responsible for BCIMC.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister seems to be on some kind of, I don't know, hunger strike or silent foot-dragging strike against the reorganization. Maybe it reflects an internal cabinet dispute that he lost when he was assigned this particular agency. I don't know. But the fact is that he's here before this assembly to justify this vote, and yet he seems to want to push it off and claim that some other minister is responsible.

The very principle of parliamentary accountability…. The Legislative Assembly does nothing more important than vote supply. That's what Legislative Assembly is all about — voting on the budget. This is part of the budget. He's the minister that's accountable for this, and he should have the answers.

Is the minister prepared to end his protest against this reorganization and answer some questions here in the Legislative Assembly? He's responsible. This vote is under his ministry.

Hon. M. Coell: Far be it for me to correct the member, but I will. This vote is a long-term disability plan for our employees. It is a contractual obligation. GAAP tells us that we need to make adjustments to the fund, and I'm recommending to the House that the adjustment be $40 million at this time. The member knows full well that BCIMC is not part of my ministry; nor does it report to me.

R. Fleming: We're simply asking the minister for an idea at a summary level of where these losses have been experienced. Were these investments made in real estate? What kind of financial markets, perhaps, suffered the most significant losses for these investments?

Where was the plan stable? There's obviously an element of it. This plan has been devalued by 15 percent, almost. That's what we're dealing with today in terms of the magnitude of the losses here. Again to the minister: an idea, any idea at all…? Because it would be irresponsible not to be, I am sure he has been briefed in this matter.

If he could describe at a summary level, at the very least, where losses have been experienced in the portfolio of this managed plan that is his responsibility as the head of the Public Service Agency for British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: I think I have answered that, and I think the member knows full well that BCIMC is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

[1720]

I find it a little bit interesting in that we're trying to keep a plan whole for our employees, and it appears very much like members of the opposition don't care whether we keep this plan whole for their employees as well.

R. Fleming: Madam Chair, the questions that have been made this afternoon have been for information. I can't believe how uninformed this minister is as he appears before the House this afternoon. He doesn't even have basic, summary-level details of the agency for which he's responsible and the benefits that he's responsible for having administered properly. It is unbelievable that that isn't available to this minister or that he won't share it with the House.

We've asked for reports that we know are available. They haven't been made available before this debate that we've had this afternoon. That would have helped immensely — to see a trend line and to see exactly what we're talking about here.

We've gone from a plan that was in significant surplus to significant deficit in this year, losses in the investment portfolio, and the minister won't even give the House basic information about that. It's embarrassing, actually.

I want to ask the minister, since he won't say anything about the investments, even though that's the whole point of having this vote here, the details around the market value losses….

Interjections.

The Chair: Member, sit down, please.

Order, Members. Order.

Member, continue.

Point of Order

R. Fleming: The minister suggested that I have a prejudice or don't care about people with disabilities. I'd ask him to withdraw that remark.

The Chair: Members, I ask all members to ensure that their dialogue is respectful and in the parliamentary tradition.

Carry on, Member.

J. Kwan: The minister said something in his chair that is blatantly untrue about a member, and the member is asking him to withdraw.

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Chair, I have been listening to this exchange with interest. I can appreciate, given the line of questioning and the reluctance of the opposition
[ Page 13912 ]
to listen to it, that the minister would be frustrated, but I heard nothing at any point that the minister said that was unparliamentary.

The Chair: Members, I have already ruled and asked the House to speak respectfully in the dialogue, and I would prefer that we carry on.

J. Kwan: I will simply make this comment. All members in this House are honourable members, including the minister. If the minister said something in his chair that is actually untrue, then he's challenging an hon. member's status, and it is inappropriate, Madam Chair. I will simply make this comment for your consideration.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, Members. Order. I repeat once again that I've asked the House to speak in parliamentary language.

I call on the member for Victoria-Hillside to resume the debate.

Debate Continued

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister about the claims history in the plan, because he suggested already this afternoon that that is a cost pressure on the plan. Again, the information that is most recently available to me and that is publicly available now from his ministry suggests that in actual fact, for many aspects of the group benefit plan, LTD has actually decreased — when it comes to extended health care, for example, and the claims submitted there. It went down 2 percent for the latest year we have, which is 2007 over 2006. Yet he suggested that part of this $40 million that is being asked for this afternoon is, in fact, related to claims history.

[1725]

I would ask the minister if he can give me an idea and give me some figures that show that the claims history is in fact a part of this $40 million, that it is a cost driver on the viability of the plan and that…. I suppose part of this contribution, this supplementary estimate, will be going towards that cost area of the plan.

Hon. M. Coell: The plan is a go-forward document. It looks at assumptions for the future. I mentioned earlier some of the factors, which would be average age, average salary, average duration on LTD, value of investments, termination experience, retirement ages, contribution to other employee benefit plans, claims, rehabilitation expenses. So it's a very complicated…. But it looks forward. It doesn't look back.

R. Fleming: The minister has brought up the issue of rehabilitation program expenses, and I appreciate that it looks forward. But if that's part of the $40 million cost pressure that's being experienced here and they ask this assembly today for assistance, then I would ask him to give some numbers that show that — because, again, it seems to me, based on the information I have, that those kinds of expenses in those areas are a very, very small part of what's paid out annually within this disability plan.

Hon. M. Coell: As I mentioned earlier, the actuarial valuation, and that's the document that the member asked for, is about 50 pages long.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

It looks forward as to what pressures there are there, and as I said earlier on, there's approximately an $8 million pressure there, going forward.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could describe to me his office's involvement in the oversight of the plan. We've talked about the Investment Management Corporation, and he's described its relationship to the Minister of Finance.

But I want to ask him — as the head of the Public Service Agency for the entire province — on a weekly, even monthly basis, in relation to these benefit plans and other parts of the public service, what kinds of briefings and direction it's his responsibility to give and what kinds of things require his sign-off and approval. I'll ask that question now, and I'll wait for his response.

Hon. M. Coell: This is a plan that's been in existence for many years, one which our employees, many thousands of them, count on as part of their benefit package. The plan is managed by the Public Service Agency with claim adjudication and claim administration services provided under contract by Great West Life Assurance Company.

R. Fleming: Again, if there's reporting of a quarterly basis or even more frequently, I just want to get an understanding of how the information travels through the minister's office as the head of the Public Service Agency — what his involvement is, what kind of oversight he gives — because earlier this afternoon I suggested to him that throughout the entire documents that were available for us to review that are published by the Public Service Agency, there was never any suggestion that losses were expected from the long-term disability plan.

Quite the contrary. It was in a very healthy fiscal position from the information that we have available to us. Because he has deferred a lot of very, very basic questions about these funds to the Minister of Finance, I'm trying to understand exactly what his office's role
[ Page 13913 ]
is as the head of the Public Service Agency, what this minister does to provide oversight and to protect the integrity and make plans whole — as he's coming here to the Legislature this afternoon to try and do — for the Public Service Agency and its benefits.

[1730]

Hon. M. Coell: I will describe what the basis of our oversight is. We make sure that people with disabilities get the money they need. If someone is disabled on the job in British Columbia, this is the plan that covers them. Through many years of negotiations, this is an employer-funded plan.

It has a trigger in it so that if it loses money, it is government's responsibility to keep the plan whole. We do that. If we find we need funds for this plan because of a loss, we bring it to the Legislature and ask for it.

R. Fleming: The most recent report of the Investment Management Corp., which is apparently published on a more timely basis, has some discussion about the challenge that that corporation is facing across the public service. There is an explanation there, or a discussion, of some of the pressures that world markets have put on our investments, our public funds that we invest.

We've tried to get an explanation as to exactly and precisely what the minister is suggesting needs to be covered here in terms of the losses this afternoon. We've had no luck in getting a breakdown as to where those funds are invested.

What is guiding this most recent report of the IMC is a glimpse of world stock prices. There is a discussion paper here, and I'm sure the minister is probably familiar with this document, even though he seems to defer most things related to the IMC to his colleague. This discussion actually ends in April 2008 in terms of the description of the challenges that the world is facing and that funds like this are facing.

Now, we well know, particularly in Canada, that the turn for the worse really began in earnest in July or August of 2008, so what the minister is asking for today is something that relates to some period of time ago. In other words, the losses are more than just a snapshot, but they only cover a certain period of time.

I'm asking the minister if he can give some kind of forecast or horizon and whether this $40 million actually is, in fact, anticipatory or just an action that has to deal with a period that we're discussing in the past. In other words, what is the actuarial horizon or outlook that the minister is asking for here with the $40 million in terms of making the fund whole going forward?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member knows, as we all do, that we're in some interesting financial times. We will continue to monitor this fund and, if need be, come back to this House for any increases.

R. Fleming: I think it's very disappointing that this afternoon we didn't get any detail, as we appealed for it on a very basic level — that we were denied information we know is readily available to the minister and that the debate we've been having today hasn't had the benefit of that being shared with members of this assembly.

It's good enough to come to this assembly and ask them for $40 million. But to come to this assembly not prepared to answer questions on where the losses were experienced — even at the most basic, as I said, summary level — really is something else.

That's an incredible attitude. It's not the first time that we've seen it, to be sure, but it's the first time I've seen it from this minister, who has had some time now as the head of the Public Service Agency to get a handle on this file. I appreciate it's a very large responsibility, but it's one that he, presumably, very willingly accepted as a minister.

I would say this in closing. It's not good enough to come here unprepared like that — not just this minister but any minister who is asking for tens and tens of millions of dollars, as we see across a variety of ministries. The information should be shared with the opposition. Basic questions at a summary level should be ones that are readily available and answerable by the minister. Perhaps he did have it available and chose not to. I can only speculate.

Obviously, the benefit plans that are available to members of the public service are incredibly important. We understand there are obligations to this minister and to government and to everybody in this place to honour those kinds of negotiated agreements and benefit packages.

[1735]

Things do go wrong. I think there is an understanding of that on both sides of the House. We do live in extraordinary times. But we do expect that when we are in a period like this and that when anyone comes to the House asking for supplementary estimates of tens of millions of dollars, basic questions that can easily be anticipated should have answers available, because that's how we best do our job.

With that, I have no more questions on this item.

Hon. M. Coell: I appreciate the remarks, but one thing I would like to add is that this plan really is in existence for our employees who are disabled on the job. I think, and I would hope, that if the member found himself in the same place, he would be here asking for this money to keep this plan whole.

Vote 23(S): B.C. Public Service Agency, $40,000,000 — approved.

The Chair: The House will recess for two minutes.
[ Page 13914 ]

The committee recessed from 5:36 p.m. to 5:37 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

supplementary estimates:
ministry of housing
and social development

On Vote 36(S): housing and construction standards, $30,000,000.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to make opening remarks?

Hon. R. Coleman: The $30 million in the supplementary estimate will flow to B.C. Housing to purchase eight properties in five communities, providing over 400 units of housing with integrated support services. This acquisition will bring the total number of properties acquired by the province to 45, for a total number of units in those properties of over 2,030 units.

These acquisitions are under the development of the provincial homeless initiative launched as a result of the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Health and Addictions. Increasing the supply of affordable housing or protecting stock has been part of the strategy for some time and will continue to be so. Under the strategy the province is investing more than $400 million in shelters and affordable housing, more than three times as much as we did in 2001. This is capital that has gone to purchase the units.

I welcome members' comments and questions.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: They like me.

To my right is Sharon Moysey. Sharon is the ADM, management services, Ministry of Housing and Social Development. To my left is Dan Maxwell, who is a vice-president and chief financial officer of B.C. Housing.

J. Kwan: Thank you to the minister for the opening comments, and I look forward to a civilized debate with the minister in getting some answers related to the supplementary estimates.

To let the minister know in terms of how things will go, at least for today, at about 6:10 my two colleagues, one from Nelson-Creston and the other from Campbell River, will come into the House to ask some specific questions related to their community, related to the supplementary estimates.

[1740]

For the time being what I'll do is ask some general questions in a broader sense around these, and then I, too, will get into specifics with the ministry — likely tomorrow, given the time of day.

To begin with, of course, I would like to get a fuller sense from the minister on this $30 million of supplemental estimates. Exactly what are the projects that it is being spent on, with the eight projects that the minister mentioned and 400 units in respective communities? I would like to have a breakdown of exactly what properties these projects are and where they are located.

Hon. R. Coleman: This money is related to eight properties: one in Prince George, which is the Astoria Inn at 1145 2nd Avenue; one in Penticton, which is the Hansel and Gretel Motel on 2872 Skaha Lake Road; another one, which is in Williams Lake, the Jamboree Motel at 845 Carson; the other is in Mission, which is the Grand Street Lodge at 7755 Grand Street.

In Vancouver there were four purchases. One was the Cordova Residence at 56 East Cordova. The second was the Dominion Hotel at 210 Abbott/92 Water Street. The other was the Hazelwood Hotel at 342 and 344 East Hastings, and the Backpackers Inn at 7-11 West Hastings.

J. Kwan: Before I get into each of the individual projects, then, let me ask the minister some questions about federal transfers. The $30 million in supplemental estimates: were any of those dollars from the federal government?

Hon. R. Coleman: No.

J. Kwan: Let me just ask this general question. Could the minister please advise how the province came to purchase these projects? Was it that the province hired — I don't know — a realtor person who then looked into potential SROs that might be on the market and inquired on behalf of the province? Is that the process the minister followed? Or could the minister explain what process the government embarked on in the purchase of these SROs?

Hon. R. Coleman: We had a few different priorities on this particular purchase, but basically, we were trying to find as many vacant units as we could in this particular round of purchases.

The purchases are done by the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation, which is, for lack of a better description, another Crown corporation under the management of B.C. Housing. In some cases we did use realtors, but what we did was use commercial realtors we had relationships with in the past to say, "This is what we're looking for and these are the parameters," and then they went and saw….

If they knew of something on the market, they came back to us with some information or may have made overtures to someone whose property may not necessarily be listed, for instance, in the marketplace.
[ Page 13915 ]

J. Kwan: I actually am going to yield the floor for the moment to my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows to ask some questions first, and then I'll come back to it. He has a tight time line, and he needs to get some questions in before we wrap.

[1745]

M. Sather: I'm interested to hear about the renovations that are happening — one just down the road in Mission. I wanted to also ask the minister about a project in my community that he's familiar with, that we've discussed previously. It is a 42-unit supported-housing facility that the Alouette Home Start Society is proposing, which has been approved, as I understand it, by the municipality.

When I talked to Alouette earlier this winter, they were waiting to hear back from the ministry as to whether this project was going to proceed. When it was going to proceed is, I guess, more the area that we should be discussing, because it had been approved for $5 million funding by the ministry. It's a very worthwhile project that certainly will help alleviate homelessness and addictions issues in Maple Ridge as well as the attendant, I believe, property crime problems that the local businesses, and particularly the Maple Ridge business improvement association, complain about.

I'm just wondering if the minister can help me out with information on that project.

Hon. R. Coleman: We have dozens of projects on the go, at different stages of development and approval, so I don't have that specific detail with me today. I will get it for the member and provide it to him.

We're not here with the entire estimates binders for the entire estimates of Housing today, because we're dealing with the sort of microcosm of the purchases. I'm certainly happy to get the information for the member.

To give him an update, I can give him some information on Maple Ridge today, and that is that there are 613 units of subsidized housing in the community today. There are 234 elderly citizens receiving Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters. There are 157 rental assistance program people. Units under development — there are 95 in that particular area for total units of 1,099, with an annual subsidy of $5.272 million.

It may be under development construction, or it may be under planning, which is a different aspect of the ministry. The best I can do for the member is that we've taken note of it, and we will get you the information.

M. Sather: We remain hopeful in our community. I thank the minister for his response, but the information that I'm getting locally is that the society is quite concerned that there seems to be a hold on the funds insofar as they're aware. The hope was, once the federal budget came down with regard to housing, that there would be word. But it's been a while now since the federal budget was out, and we don't have any further information. So I look forward to that information from the minister.

One other project which the minister will be aware of — I wrote him a letter about it a few weeks ago — is a project on 222nd Street in Maple Ridge. I'm not sure. These individuals tell me that they spoke to the minister when he was out in the fall at a nomination meeting, or something like that, and that he had suggested to them that he'd be willing to discuss it further with them.

I'm just grasping in my mind to remember the name, actually, of the organization at this time. The minister may remember my letter, as it wasn't long ago. I'm asking if he has any further update on that project, if he's going to help those individuals out. It was a matter of renovations, in fact, that they needed, which isn't all that different, I guess, than what's up in these supplementary estimates.

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member could get me the name of the project, it would be helpful. I do know we're doing a large renovation in Pitt Meadows with regards to a co-op, but I don't know if that's the project he's referring to. That's gone to tender. If I had the name of the organization, I could probably get the details for the member. If you want to get me that…. Or else I'll just have my office bring forward the letter you sent me and look at it.

[1750]

If it's a renovation, it may fit into the federal-provincial relationship. When the federal government announced its funding for housing, it was mainly geared to the renovation of existing social housing stock, not for new build. We have spoken to the federal government in the interim and asked them if they would reconsider deploying how we could redeploy some of the dollars.

There are some rules around what will actually qualify for renovation. We're working out those details now, subsequent to their announcement. We don't have the answers on that yet.

M. Sather: Just quickly, and then I'll pass back to my colleague. This project is a renovation. It is an existing project. But the question that I also needed to find out — and I'll look forward to the information from the minister — is whether or not it was eligible under the ministry. I don't know that they're registered with B.C. Housing. I'm hopeful, though.

They've had years and years and decades of a non-profit having run that organization. I'll look forward to the information from the minister, and I'll e-mail or otherwise give him further information on it as well.

Hon. R. Coleman: If it's a non-profit, we'll have some information on it, more than likely because it has had some relationship probably with a program of housing
[ Page 13916 ]
at some point in time in the last two or three or four or five decades.

Each one is a different kettle of fish, because each one sometimes falls into different programs. We're happy to get the information for the member.

J. Kwan: I'll now come back to some of the more general questions. Just prior to the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows asking his questions, the minister was advising this House that the process which they embarked on, the purchase of these SROs…. It sounded to me like the government was just generally looking and on the lookout for SROs to be purchased, particularly those that might be vacant and available for purchase.

Did I hear the minister correctly in that that was sort of a process? Did the government retain a company or agency or somebody to be doing this work, or was that done internally by staff?

Hon. R. Coleman: For the last number of years as we've purchased different buildings, they've come to us in different ways. Basically, sometimes a non-profit has let us know about a building that they think might be of value for us to take a look at. We'll take that into consideration and then contact an agency to ask them to make some inquiries on our behalf. Sometimes it's a case of basically saying, "This is what we're looking for," and having agents come back with properties.

On this particular round, because it wasn't as large a buy as the round we bought the ten buildings — the 14 or 15, actually, at the end of the day — in Vancouver…. That time we used a numbered company that went out and then hired somebody to look for buildings for us, because this wasn't as many buildings or properties. We went to the marketplace and discussed it with a number of people, so there was no specific agency identified that would find all these buildings.

In the Okanagan it could have been the listing agent of a property in Penticton — same thing in Prince George or a place like Williams Lake. It may have been an agent we asked to make an overture on our behalf. It was all done through PRHC.

[1755]

J. Kwan: It was done through PRHC, so then there was no commission for a realtor acting on behalf of the government.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just to be clear, if a realtor brought us the property, we pay commission. If the property is listed, we pay commission. That's the real estate marketplace. So there are commissions paid to people who bring us properties that we use either through a sales agent or a listing agent, just like any other transaction.

J. Kwan: Could the minister break down for me: of that $30 million, how much went into which project?

Hon. R. Coleman: My advice is no, not at this time. The reason for that is the current owners have accepted the province's offers. Contracts are in place; subjects have been removed. But until the properties are actually sold — the completion dates occur over the next month or so…. The prices can't be disclosed until they're completed.

That's part of the contract of purchase and sale that we've done with the sellers. We have a disclosure agreement. As we get to final sale, then we disclose the prices on all of them. Once the completion takes place, the sale completes, we'll disclose all the prices.

J. Kwan: Could the minister tell this House: when does he expect the completion for the closure of these purchases to be made?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have various completion dates, so over the next couple of weeks to the next month.

J. Kwan: Okay. For these eight projects could the minister walk me through on completion dates? When can I expect that information to be public — in other words, for the different projects?

[1800]

Hon. R. Coleman: I have a spreadsheet here, and the CFO wants to confirm some dates, so he's going to do that now before I disclose them. I can tell the member that the completion dates on a number of them run anywhere from the beginning of March until late May. All of them have options for us to close sooner when we remove subjects. We're going to move them all up within a month, once we have the spending authority and everything gets done.

There are three that appear that we have completed on, and that's what he's going to confirm. If he can confirm that, I will disclose the prices to the member.

J. Kwan: I would appreciate very much to get that information once the minister has it. Note to the Minister of Advanced Education: perhaps he can engage in the practice that the ministry is, and we can get through these sets of estimates with real answers. That would be helpful for all British Columbians, I expect. Thank you for that.

In terms of the $30 million, then. There are, I would expect, capital dollars that went into the purchase of these projects. I would expect that there would be some administrative costs as well. Along with the capital, I would expect that there'd be some commission for the realtors that were involved in the respective projects. Are there dollars slated for the renovation side of the projects, and if so, how much? Could I get that on a breakdown for each of the projects as well?
[ Page 13917 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: We have $3 million set aside for renovations. We've already done the pricing and all of that with regards to each one of the buildings, and the crews would be ready to go as soon as we're able to close. Once we close, we will move our crews in immediately and do the renovations.

J. Kwan: So $3 million for all of the projects?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's correct. Obviously, in the operating budget we have ongoing renovation money, but in this $30 million, we took $3 million to specifically have renovations on some of these units.

A number of them don't need renovating in this particular package. Some of them are in pretty decent shape. There are a couple that are particularly bad, and we know that they may cost us more, but we've actually cash-flowed that out into the next year's budget as we look forward.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister can tell me which ones don't need renovations.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are three that don't, in the opinion of B.C. Housing, need any renovations. That would be the Mission one on 7755 Grand — which is actually in very good shape; it already has a lot of equipment left behind from a previous health care facility — one on 54 East Cordova and the one at 342 and 344 East Hastings. They're the three that are not at this stage, in the opinion of the housing commission, in need of renovation.

[1805]

J. Kwan: So that's the Cordova Residence and the Hazelwood in Vancouver. I believe those are the addresses for those two projects and then the one in Mission. I assume that's correct. If I'm incorrect, the minister, I'm sure, will get up to correct me on that.

On that note, then, $3 million for the renovations for the remaining ones. Of the $30 million, how much of that goes into the operation of these projects?

Hon. R. Coleman: None of it does.

J. Kwan: So this is just capital spending, and the operating costs, presumably, will come in the '09-10 budget stream?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, and the operating budget comes from a variety of streams. Some of it comes from B.C. Housing. The operating costs…. Usually the heaviest cost to B.C. Housing is amortization and mortgage. In this case, we're buying them, so there's none of that. Another piece comes through both health authorities and the Ministry of Health as we integrate the services into these buildings.

Another piece, if there's anything to do with youth, comes from Children and Family. Then the housing, the social development side of the ministry, which is employment and income assistance, also has funds that they put into particular contracts and stuff done in particular areas across the province.

So what we do now…. Because we're a merged ministry, and we've started to integrate the services, the budget changes from an operating perspective. Because some of the services that would previously have been delivered by Housing will now be delivered through EI or through Health or in what we're going to have as the integrated strategy, which will be managed by this ministry by taking those funds and making sure they go into each particular facility for the needs of the particular clientele.

J. Kwan: For the project that I believe is out in Mission — which is a former care facility, if I'm correct — what kind of care facility would it be?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Grand Street Lodge is a vacant facility at 7755 Grand St. in Mission. It provides us with about 48 units of housing, once we have it in our possession. We're going to work with the municipality to work on the clientele there — a non-profit housing society to manage it. We don't have a society selected for that particular building.

We believe that because it's a former care facility, we'll be able to handle some of the people with more significant mental health and addictions. It will actually be a very good piece of the puzzle to have people that would come from something like the Willingdon centre, to be able to have a housing situation that they could go into. So we think it's actually a very good building for the integration right up the line with the mental health and addictions side.

J. Kwan: I'm being harassed by my own colleagues here. So I'm going to yield the floor to the member for Nelson-Creston and then the member from Williams Lake who will then carry the debate until, I guess, we adjourn. I'll come back to these questions tomorrow, and I'll look forward to it.

C. Evans: Thank you, hon. Chair — truly honourable Chair, sir, gentleman.

Interjection.

C. Evans: It's a new start, yeah. I found that rock and turned over that thing — the leaf or whatever it was — took the right pills or something.

Anyway, I would like to ask the minister questions about the Creston Trinity Housing Society, which owns a project called Catalpa lodge in Creston on United
[ Page 13918 ]
Church property. My rationale for asking these questions in these estimates — I know that's important — is that in the fall of last year, the Catalpa society asked B.C. Housing to review and change the nature of their mortgage and were denied.

It is my wish to ask the minister to consider changing that answer and adding the Catalpa lodge's request to these estimates.

[1810]

Now, I just want to give you a little background. Catalpa lodge was built 50 years ago. In 1977 a mortgage of $199,440 was negotiated at an interest rate of 10 percent. The Catalpa lodge society offers low-cost housing to poor people in the town of Creston and has now ever since December 1, 1977. However, at 10 percent interest, because they actually are attempting to deliver low-cost housing, they have only managed to pay $572,000 of interest and $30,000 in capital off the principal.

Housing at Catalpa lodge…. Rents are $280 for a single and $357 for a double. Now, I would like to ask a series of questions of the minister about the likelihood of using these estimates to, I hope, simply renegotiate the price, because at 10 percent, that's — dare I say it? — usury in a world where most people are at 3 percent or 4 percent. A high interest rate is 5 percent, and these folks are paying 10 percent.

Why do I care? I hope the minister cares. We all should care, because the United Church and the Catalpa lodge society would like to do a partnership with the minister and start another housing project, but they can't, because the sum total of their ability to earn money is consumed in making half a million dollars' worth of interest payments.

My first question to the minister is: is the minister's staff aware of negotiations with the Catalpa lodge on United Church property in Creston with B.C. Housing in the present fiscal year?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, these are CMHC mortgages. They're not actually B.C. Housing. B.C. Housing administers the mortgages on behalf of CMHC on the terms of what the mortgages are, and they will not allow us to change the terms.

This isn't the only one we're talking to CMHC about. There's a number of them that we have concerns with. These were 50-year mortgages done back in the 1970s. At that time, 10 percent seemed like a decent deal. Through the '80s, when it went to 21 percent and 22 percent, it probably looked like a pretty good deal.

At this stage, they're still sitting by the fact that they're not going to renegotiate these, because they're 50-year deals. We are in conversation with CMHC to have them reconsider that position, because we think that there should be some reconsideration of it, but they aren't our contracts to adjust. In other words, we can't amend them, because they're not our mortgages, and we don't have the legal right to do that.

On the other side of the coin with the society, if they're interested in doing additional housing, if they have land and space, I'd certainly like to hear from them, because I don't think the mortgage, with anything else that we would do on their site, would be an impediment to anything new we could do with them.

I think we could still find some options so that we might be able to do some creative things with them. I'd certainly like to hear from them in that regard, because we're talking to non-profit societies across the province with regard to that right now.

[1815]

C. Evans: Thanks to the minister for that answer and offer.

The Trinity Housing Society, which owns Catalpa lodge, adds that their mortgage is just like yours and mine. There's a sentence in it that talks about the ability to renegotiate the mortgage or pay down your debt level if you have cash, and that part of their mortgage is crossed out. The words exist in the contract, but it is crossed out, without a signature or an initial by CMHC or their board members in 1977.

My question to the minister is: is this the norm with the other organizations which are stuck with these mortgages — that the mortgage actually called for the ability to pay down the mortgage and that those words have been crossed out?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is yeah. In the early 1970s when these were done by CMHC, all of that language was taken out. It was initialled by the organization at the time, accepting that language was taken out when they signed the 50-year contract.

So this is not unusual to this particular situation. When we had the devolution of the management of the CMHC contracts take place, it became one of the things very apparent to us that we had concerns about.

I must tell you, Member — and I will be having a conversation with the federal minister about this — that at this stage CMHC has not been willing to negotiate or discuss these mortgages.

C. Evans: I thank the minister for his answers.

I am wondering. If I received this letter about a bank…. If the Royal Bank or the credit union or someone in Creston — a mortgage broker in Creston — crossed out a clause in the mortgage and failed to have it initialled, I would suggest that it was illegal.

An Hon. Member: Bogus.

C. Evans: Bogus is a good word.

Has the minister asked his legal counsel about whether or not these contracts — crossing out the ability of the housing society to pay down the principal — are legal?
[ Page 13919 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's be clear. These were not contracts done by the provincial government. They were done by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation back in an old program that we only administered. Our understanding when we looked at this is that they are actually legal contracts, because both parties knew what they were signing and both parties knew that that was crossed out when that agreement was made.

Having said that, that's where we understand the situation to be. The challenge for us is to get CMHC to allow us to figure out a way to get creative, so these people can pay them down quicker — or off.

At this stage, they haven't been prepared to deal with these particular mortgages. There has been some other stuff we've gotten through, but on this particular one, we haven't broken the back of it yet. But we will continue to try.

C. Evans: I don't want you to think I'm belabouring this point. The reason I think it matters is because we have to build housing in Creston, and the housing society is good at it and wants to build more housing but needs to reconcile this mortgage issue in order to raise capital for additional projects.

If the province is administering the loan for CMHC, is it possible for the province to pay down the principal so that the folks in Creston, the society, could borrow the money, give it to the minister, and the minister could give it to the federal government and eliminate their debt?

[1820]

Hon. R. Coleman: I know this sounds bizarre, but no, we can't do it either. These are mortgage contracts that have the clause removed. We couldn't pay it down early, the society can't pay it down early, and they're not moving off that particular policy at this time.

We have discussions coming up with the federal government with regards to a number of things to do with CMHC. This is one of them, and we will continue to. But it is a contract that the federal Crown refuses to change. So at this stage they refuse to change it.

Now, if we took it over, we would just be making the payments on behalf of the society. That would mean that we would be having some charge against their property, I suppose, in order to have us take over a payment. The reality is that the best way to do this is to try and get CMHC and the feds to….

This has been an ongoing discussion in some jurisdictions for about ten or 15 years, actually. We haven't had the devolution as long as some other jurisdictions have. They have not moved off these, and I don't know why. I haven't been given a valid reason.

They signed 50-year contracts. They said: "We tied up the money at 10 percent in '77. We guaranteed it for 50 years. We had no penalty clause in it, so people couldn't pay them out, because we wanted the certainty of the dollars — however they're doing their financing." And today they have not been prepared to negotiate.

It doesn't mean we're done trying, because we're going to continue to try. We will continue to try and find a solution to this one. I realize that it doesn't fit within this budget discussion either, but it's not our contract to change, and unless the Crown federally says they're prepared to change it and accept early payment or change the interest, we can't do anything with it.

C. Evans: I appreciate the minister's answer. I think this is pretty much the same situation that created Robin Hood, eh? The sheriff is out there robbing from the poor. That's the federal government.

These people provide housing to poor people. This is a charity case. Out of their goodwill providing housing. They don't live in the housing. They're providing it to other people, and the sheriff is out there robbing from them.

In 1977 their original cost was $199,440 to provide housing for poor people. They have now paid the federal government of Canada $572,000, almost three times what they borrowed for the privilege of being Good Samaritans. I very much appreciate that the minister is trying to solve it, but I suggest that we need, on behalf of these folks, to take the federal government to court, or at least blow it as big as we can and say that they are behaving like the Sheriff of Nottingham.

They've paid $30,000 down in 30 years. It's a 50-year mortgage. Is it the minister's expectation that somehow, magically, the rest of the principal will be paid down over the next 20 years, or is it a rollover mortgage and it will go on forever?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, it'll be paid for in the 50-year term. What happens with longer-term mortgages is that in the first 25 to 30 years of a 50-year mortgage, you're basically paying interest. Your principal payments increase in the last 20 years and go up and up and up until the mortgage is paid off. That's not uncommon, whether it be a 25-year amortization or a 35-year or whatever. The early years are the years you pay the least amount of principal and the most amount of interest.

I'm not arguing with the member. I'm actually on the member's side in this discussion. We're trying to find a solution with CMHC to solve this dilemma that faces some of our non-profits that signed these contracts 30 years ago — in this case, 32 years ago.

[1825]

Back in those days when the mortgages were done, it was a way of financing housing, given at a guaranteed rate of interest that looked good at the time. That probably proved right from about 1977 through to the mid-'90s. Then the interest rates started to drop down below double digits.

The reality is that a 10 percent interest rate in a lot of those periods of time…. I think I built a house in '77,
[ Page 13920 ]
and my interest rate was 13½. Ten percent would look good — right?

They did sign these contracts with CMHC, and they're saying that these contracts aren't to be opened. All I can offer to the member is that I will keep him posted on the progress with CMHC. We're not going to stop discussing it with them. We're trying to find the solution, recognizing that this is obviously an issue that you and I are both aware of and were aware of. We do not have the legal ability or the power to do anything about it because it's a mortgage with a Crown corporation federally. So it's out of our jurisdiction.

But we have tried to work through, and we'll continue to work on it, actually. I will keep the member posted on our progress, because at some point in time he might want to have a conversation with his local MP to let him become aware of the issue as well, to help us with this particular issue.

I think there are arguments on both sides that they've taken the money from government. They probably paid out money on interest on Canada bonds relative to those dollars that they've invested over the years to people, and those sorts of things. I'm sure there are all kinds of arguments about it, but at today's interest rate, you look at it and say: "Why couldn't you do something different?"

Today they're not moving off the 50-year mortgages that they had. There are a number of them — not huge dollars — that exist in B.C. and other jurisdictions that they haven't moved off.

Noting the hour, I move that the Committee of Supply rise, report resolutions — not of mine but the other guys', unless you want to give me resolution of mine, too — and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:28 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