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)

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 39, Number 4

[ Page 14151 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: First I'd like to welcome to the House two former members: Sheila Orr, former member for Victoria-Hillside; and Lynn Stephens, a former member for Langley, who are visiting the House for the first time. I think we should make them welcomed back.

I just wanted to recognize today that we have constituency assistants from across the province who have joined us today. I know all members of the House, from both sides of the House, recognize how important constituency assistants are in actually being the face of the public service in so many ways across the province. I hope the House will make all of the constituency assistants welcome.

C. Evans: I rise to make an apology. When I was very young, I had the honour of escorting some MLAs through the Okanagan in a bus. At one point, when one of the MLAs was indisposed, I took the rest and left. When the lady caught up with me, she referred to me as pond scum. I would just like to say, since she's joined us here today: Lynn Stephens was right.

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, mindful of your comments to us yesterday in the House…. Today is the second day of Education Week, and we do have a number of people we'd like to introduce who are in the gallery today, and I know that you will indulge us that moment. We'd like to welcome a number of people who were recognized in our Celebration of Learning earlier.

Joining us in the House and today are Wendy Payne, principal at Strawberry Vale Elementary School in Saanich and winner of Canada's Outstanding Principals award 2009; Bob Loat, driver for the Chilliwack board of education and winner of the Association of School Transportation Supervisors of British Columbia School Bus Driver of the Year; Shannon Kumpolt and Marybeth Esau from Centennial Christian School of Terrace. They are winners of the National Inclusive Education Award.

We also would like to welcome Brenda Melnychuk and Chalya Wilcox from Haldane Elementary in Chase. Haldane is the first school in Canada to achieve Earth 4 status, completing more than 4,000 environmentally focused projects.

We're also delighted to be joined by members of the B.C. School Trustees Association: Connie Denesiuk, Michael McEvoy, Melissa Hyndes, Diana Mumford, Teresa Rezansoff, Gordon Swan and Stephen Hansen. Please join me in making all of our special guests welcome.

J. Kwan: At a rare moment of bipartisanship today, the Minister of Health and I held a joint event at the Ned DeBeck Lounge. We welcomed the Stand Up for Mental Health group, who made a presentation for the members that attended. In the gallery today are six members of them. Individual MLAs will be introducing those who came.

From my particular riding I want to make welcome Paul Decarie, who is also a comic with the Stand Up for Mental Health group. He lives in the Downtown Eastside community, is a mental health consumer and has been performing for eight years. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: We're joined in the gallery today by two school groups from Langley Christian School, along with their teachers and a dedicated group of parents. I had a chance to speak with a few of them earlier today. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased also to join the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant in a couple of introductions in regard to Stand Up for Mental Health.

[1340]

This is a remarkable program that I've come to learn about that uses stand-up comedy to help people through therapy with mental health. The founder of this program is David Granirer, who is a constituent of mine and a stand-up comedian and somebody who also has met the challenges of mental health illnesses himself. He's here today, and the true stand-up comedian in the family, his son Jonathan, is with him. I hope that everybody will make David and Jonathan and all of their friends welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I, too, would like to extend my very best welcome to a dear constituent of mine, Melanie Rose. She, too, is part of Stand Up for Mental Health. I am delighted they brought their message to Victoria today, and I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

A. Dix: It's my honour to introduce Joan Stone and Pat Bayes, who are involved in Stand Up for Mental Health. It's an extraordinary mission that they have — an extraordinarily fun mission, as well, for those of us who have the opportunity to see the events, as we did today. I want to wish Joan and Pat and the whole group a great welcome here to the Legislature.

Hon. G. Abbott: I, too, want to echo the comments from across the House in respect of the Stand Up for Mental Health comedy troupe. They provided us with a wonderful noonhour presentation, a great presentation, and I want to thank them on behalf of the government side of the House for their great work this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, as you know so well, this is Pharmacist Awareness Week in British Columbia. I know you've been waiting for this. You've spoken to me a number of
[ Page 14152 ]
times in the hallway about it, in anticipation of it. We have with us today….

Mr. Speaker: I remind the minister it's not question period.

Hon. G. Abbott: The only action I get these days is in introductions, Mr. Speaker. I have to make the best of it.

The B.C. Pharmacy Association is with us today. They include Marnie Mitchell, the CEO; Ken Foreman, the president; Parkash Ragsdale, director of professional services; Susan Ogilvie, director of communications; Shakeel Bhatti, pharmacist and B.C. Pharmacy Association board member; and Marilyn Boyce, pharmacist and B.C. Pharmacy Association board member.

On behalf of the whole House, may I welcome them and wish them all the best for B.C. Pharmacist Awareness Week.

C. Wyse: Joining us today in Victoria, in the precinct, from the great village of Cache Creek, we have His Worship John Ranta, along with two councillors, Ida Makaro and Jim Loucks, along with their administrator, Tom Kadla. I would ask the House to please make them welcome, and good luck with doing their business while they're here in Victoria.

Hon. J. McIntyre: I was hoping that the House would join me in making Heather Clifford feel welcome today. She's a former constituent from the Whistler area and a supporter who's now living in Victoria, working in real estate in Colwood. I just want her to feel very welcome in Victoria.

R. Chouhan: I would like to welcome Diana Mumford, my friend from Burnaby, school trustee and the chair of the board of education. Also, I would like to welcome my other three friends here: Mohinder Grewal, community activist from the Lower Mainland; his sister Narinder Rai; and Bhupinder Rai, Narinder's husband. Please join me to welcome them all.

V. Roddick: As a proud mother-in-law, mother and grandmother, I am very pleased to introduce today Madeleine Shaw Roddick, Timothy Roddick and the apple of my eye, Genevieve, or Gigi, Roddick. Would the House please make them very welcome.

[1345]

Hon. I. Black: Joining us in the House today is someone very special. Cayley Brown is one of our stellar research officers for government caucus. Her aunt Maureen Hossak is visiting from Calgary, Alberta. I'd like to point out to Aunt Maureen that I saw the first cherry blossoms on my walk in this morning. You won't see that in Calgary for a while. She is joined by her partner in crime, Terry Sandwith. I've been told that they have been busy visiting the finer establishments in Victoria. Please join me in making them feel most welcome.

J. Nuraney: I, too, want to add my acknowledgment of the presence of Diana Mumford here in the House today. When she was a parent, she was singularly responsible for introducing the "drive slowly" signs outside the schools in Burnaby, something that took off quite well. So I want to welcome Diane Mumford to the Legislature.

If I may, I would also like to acknowledge the fact that we have two other members of my constituency office here, Clark Houseley and Chris Chan, my true lifelines, who make me feel good.

Hon. P. Bell: We're joined in the gallery today by two friends and great supporters, Harry Groot and Dennis Jackson. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25b)

Stand up for mental health
comedy performance program

J. Kwan: Stand Up for Mental Health has used stand-up comedy as a form of therapy since 2004, when it was founded by David Granirer, a counsellor who also suffers from depression. Now there are SMH groups in Vancouver, Chilliwack, Abbotsford and Courtenay in B.C., as well as in Edmonton, Fort Frances, Guelph, Ottawa and Toronto. There will be new groups in Victoria and Halifax this year.

Many people with mental illness suffer from crippling shame and feel hopelessness because they are not "normal." They often hide their mental illness for fear of being shunned. Sometimes they give up on life and get stuck in poverty and isolation. This is a huge waste of their potential.

David Granirer helps mental health consumers create and perform their own original material about their mental health journeys. The experience helps them understand that they are capable, and their contributions are invaluable. Changing hearts and minds with comedy is a gift. The program has been a lifeline for many who take it. Participants have said: "This program has given me a reason to keep on living."

SMH has also seen people make healthy changes so that they can stay in the program and keep performing. SMH shows are attended by mental health consumers, mental health service providers, family members and, perhaps most important of all, the general public. It reaches corporations and government organizations with presentations on fighting stigma in the workplace.
[ Page 14153 ]

One in five Canadians deal with mental illness at some point in their lives. SMH fights stigma, prejudice and discrimination and spreads the message of hope and empowerment. A proclamation proclaiming March 3, 2009, as Stand Up for Mental Health day at the Legislature is prepared but was not ready for presentation at the lunch-hour, when they entertained us today. So I'll present it to the group later on in Vancouver.

I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating and thanking the Stand Up for Mental Health group for their thought-provoking and humorous work.

school fruit and vegetable
snack program

V. Roddick: So 739 public kindergarten-to-grade-12 schools located all across the province; 242,000 servings every other week for 14 weeks supporting B.C. growers and suppliers. Now, that's good for our economy. Changing the eating habits of our children definitely makes for a healthier future. That is our B.C. fruit and vegetable program.

[1350]

In fact, the B.C. Ag in the Classroom website actually crashed for a few moments due to visitor overload from places like Granisle, Bulkley Valley, Deep Cove, Saltspring, Hillside, Sir James Douglas annex in Vancouver, Chilliwack, Vernon, Campbell River, Castlegar, Fort St. John, Bella Coola and Tsawwassen, to name just a few, with excited and enthusiastic comments such as: "Those Cawston apples are outstanding. I'm having my kids say thank you to the farmers." "They're really loving it." "We munched to the core to save the apple seeds of the plants so we could take them home, and we saved the cores to feed them to the horses." "Our kids love this program, and teenagers don't love anything." "Some students choose the apple over ice cream." "Sugar snap peas are so good there's not enough to go around — a huge hit." "Fruits in our area are precious. Thank you for your valuable product."

The word is getting out, everybody. We all still have to eat to live.

Mr. Speaker: That was your grandma. [Laughter.]

FIELD HOCKEY

G. Gentner: In British Columbia field hockey is played by over 7,500 athletes, making B.C. the most active field hockey province in all of Canada. Both the men's and women's national teams and national coaches are based in Vancouver.

One of the premier athletes of the past decade in Canadian field hockey is Ravi Kahlon. Introduced to field hockey by his father in India and grandfather at age seven, Ravi has travelled to such places as Malaysia, South Africa, New Zealand, Argentina, China, Australia and Ireland, representing Canada as both an Olympic and national team member.

Ravi is a two-time Olympian, a three-time national team champion, and a gold and silver medalist from the Pan American Games. Now a North Delta resident with his wife Lily Grewal, Ravi retired after the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing. He works for RBC as a mortgage specialist, and he spends a considerable amount of time volunteering in his community and the Parks and Rec Commission of Delta.

On Saturday, March 7, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., at the Dennis Elsom park in North Delta, my community office and Ravi, along with Bindi Kullar, Lelia Sacré, Nick Sandhu and other Canadian Olympic and national team members and coaches, will be hosting a field hockey clinic. These celebrated athletes and coaches will bring together over 100 children and their families for this free and fun-filled clinic to introduce the game of field hockey to everyone as a sport all can play and enjoy. The clinic is open to anyone who wishes to come by.

I ask the members of this Legislature to join me and thank Ravi, Bindi, Leyla, Nick and other members of the Canadian Olympic and national field hockey teams for all they have done to represent B.C. and Canada and for making this a successful event.

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

J. Rustad: Mr. Speaker, you know this, as you used to be one. School trustees play a critical role in delivering education to hundreds of thousands of students in B.C. They're dedicated individuals that put in far more hours than people realize with only minimal compensation.

Trustees often have to make difficult decisions that have significant impacts on students and communities. They undertake the tasks with heart and compassion and never lose sight that they're working for the students. As a former trustee, I can tell you that there's a lot of joy as well as tears that go along with the job. But it was the humour and the camaraderie that kept us going.

One of the things I miss about being a trustee is the debates around the board table. They were often passionate but always respectful. I remember the first time I came down to the Legislature while I was a trustee and took the opportunity to watch question period. Upon returning to Prince George for a board meeting, I suggested to our board chair that perhaps we should introduce the antics of QP to the board meetings. He quickly responded: "Don't you dare."

Trustees are often unsung champions of education. They rarely get thanked, but they're always there to support students and to make sure our education system runs smoothly. Please join me in thanking our boards of education and the individual trustees that make such
[ Page 14154 ]
a difference in making our students' education always come first.

HANS HORNFELDT

R. Fleming: I wish to make a statement today celebrating the life of Hans Hornfeldt, a remarkable constituent of mine who passed away peacefully but unexpectedly two weeks ago.

Hans Lennart Hornfeldt was a pillar in our community and a man whose kindness in life was illustrated by his humour and his selfless work on behalf of others. He was born in Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, in May 1932, where he was employed in the newspaper business, before emigrating to Victoria in 1964. He started his business in this community in business, but before too long he was back in newspapers again, where he had a long and enjoyable career as a printer with the Times Colonist. He loved the pace and the camaraderie of the newspaper business.

[1355]

Hans was a tireless volunteer in our city. He was an effective and outspoken advocate for seniors, particularly those living with dementia. He was an active leader at the family council at the Oak Bay Kiwanis Pavilion.

Hans was involved in almost everything. Victoria's dragon boat races. He was a big supporter of the Symphony Splash. He was probably the hardest-working Santa Claus in our community every winter.

As many will know, greater Victoria's multicultural communities are known for their fraternization and working well with one another, so it was the Chinese, the Latin American and the Filipino community leaders who perhaps knew Hans best, because Hans was the semi-official ambassador for Victoria's small but vibrant Swedish community. He formed the Swedish Club in 1997, and he was soon hosting various artists, dignitaries and, especially, Swedish sports teams.

True to form, Hans was on the front page of the Times Colonist last summer personally welcoming, from his old village in Sweden, the Sedin brothers, as they joined training camp at Victoria's Bear Mountain Arena.

At the age of 50 Hans took up long-distance running. He eventually ran five major marathons, including his lifelong dream of the Stockholm Marathon. He went on to take on parasailing at age 60 and mountain climbing at age 70, taking on very difficult technical climbs.

I ask that members of the Legislature pass on our thoughts to Hans's family and his very extended family of friends in greater Victoria.

WEST VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT

R. Sultan: Policing is in the headlines these days and understandably. People are fed up with reckless gangs and random bullets. In such a charged environment, it's tempting to redesign the police, but recall the words of Mr. Gilbert: "When a constabulary's duty is to be done…a policeman's lot is not a happy one." Lament comes more easily than solution.

Let me, therefore, give you a positive report about our municipal police force in West Vancouver. Although relatively small, it has been rather successful in helping to keep down the crime rate. Residents dig deep to pay for a premium service, and that's exactly what they get. About 10 percent of our officers are seconded to integrated metro units, including the Integrated Gang Task Force and the 2010 security unit. Communication via E-Comm further promotes seamless Lower Mainland integration when needed.

Faced with many challenges, I am pleased to report a highly professional response in this almost 100-year-old institution. As we deal with ongoing threats to civil society, from which West Vancouver is unfortunately not immune, I have no doubt that our residents strongly support the West Vancouver police department.

Oral Questions

FAIRNESS REPORT ON B.C. RAIL SALE

L. Krog: According to the government's own release of the fairness adviser's final report on B.C. Rail — and I note it's up on the government website, if anyone's afraid to actually answer today — the provincial government and its advisers designed and managed the B.C. Rail sell-off in a "fair and impartial manner." But the documents obtained by the official opposition show that that is anything but true.

Every proponent, save the successful one, complained about the process. Two, in fact, actually withdrew. The fairness adviser didn't even speak with the proponents about their concerns. And just to be sure it got what it needed to maintain the fiction of fairness, the government reviewed and edited the fairness adviser's report.

To the Premier. For years the Premier has refused to answer questions that the deal was tainted. Now it appears that his government actually tampered with the fairness adviser's report to save their political hide. My question is simply this. Will he finally admit that his government violated the public trust in the B.C. Rail sell-off?

Hon. W. Oppal: We respect the rule of law. We operate under the rule of law. Fundamental to the rule of law is the doctrine of separation of powers.

[1400]

The courts are independent of the Legislature. The Legislature is independent of the courts. Guided by those principles, I will not respond to that question.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.
[ Page 14155 ]

L. Krog: The facts are in the documents. According to an e-mail from the independent fairness adviser, Charles River Associates, the provincial evaluation team responsible for the project said: "Please find attached our latest draft of the final report along with two confidential appendices for the province's eyes only. We will continue to revise and edit the report as appropriate, and we appreciate any feedback from you and the other individuals involved."

Again, to the Premier: how can British Columbians have any trust in this government when the so-called independent fairness adviser was taking orders from the minister's office and the very committee responsible for the unfair process?

Hon. W. Oppal: The member continues to rely on and make reference to documents that are before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It is improper for him to ask that question; it is improper for me to answer that question.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a further supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, I invite the Attorney General to take a flight on the helijet to Vancouver. He can go to the courthouse along with every other of the millions of British Columbians who want to view the documents. They're not a secret.

What this government continues to do, however, is spurn accountability and refuse to answer questions. Yesterday the Attorney General himself in this House said that the government usually follows the rules.

Today we know the government tampered with the fairness adviser's report. It was a report about the fairness of the process for selling off a billion-dollar asset that used to belong to the people of British Columbia, and that was a major campaign promise by this government broken.

Interfering in the process — it's pretty grim. So I want to ask the Premier: was this an off day? Was this another one of those days when, to use the Attorney General's words, we didn't follow the rules?

Hon. W. Oppal: The member opposite is quite correct that members of the public have access to these documents. The documents are public. There's a distinction here, though.

We are members of this Legislative Assembly. We are lawmakers. We do not infringe upon the independence of the courts. So in those circumstances, we do not make comments on those matters that are before the courts.

J. Horgan: Five years after this building was raided by the police, the public doesn't have access to answers from this government on fundamental, basic questions of ethics and morality.

What did CP Rail's vice-president have to say about the process this government went through? They said: "This is a clear breach of general process fairness and a violation of the intent of the specific process established and communicated by the evaluation committee."

Here's what Burlington Northern, their vice-president, had to say: "Our dismay arises because of the lack of fairness in which the process has been conducted so far, the apparent favouritism of certain bidders and the lack of timely information provided to all participants involved in the process."

My question is to the Premier. When will the whitewash end? When will the Premier stand in this place and admit once and for all that the process was flawed — that he gave away a public asset to insiders not in a fair way?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, the public will receive the answers when the verdict is in.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, I certainly value the Attorney's interventions. They're always brief and irrelevant. So I'll go back to the Premier.

[1405]

Five years ago — the Premier will recall this; he was away at the time — the police came into this building. They removed documents. People are charged. The Attorney won't answer questions. The Premier won't answer questions.

Let's go to the website. Let's go to the government's website where we can find the River report. That report was managed and manipulated by government. The Premier should stand up and admit that. There's nothing independent about a report that gets edited by bureaucrats. Stand and tell us it's a whitewash.

Hon. W. Oppal: On this side of the House we respect the rule of law. Obviously, that member has no respect for the rule of law. Otherwise he would not be making comment on matters that are before the Supreme Court.

R. Fleming: These are questions about documents that are now in the public realm. Let's go back to after the CN Rail deal became public. All of the bidders — every bidder — wrote to government expressing their disappointment at the lack of fairness.

"Extremely dismayed with the handling of the B.C. Rail transaction because of a lack of fairness," wrote Burlington Northern. "Lack of fairness put CPR at a significant disadvantage," wrote Canadian Pacific. "We are disappointed with the news and the way in which it was communicated," wrote Omnitrax.

It turns out they were right. It turns out that not only did the government strike a tainted deal, but they struck a tainted report about the deal.
[ Page 14156 ]

Again, to the Premier: will he admit in this House today that the so-called independent fairness report wasn't worth the paper it was written on and admit the deal was unfair, biased and not in the interest of British Columbians?

Hon. W. Oppal: Nice speech. Completely irrelevant. Lots of sound and fury — with the greatest of conceivable respect.

The fact that the documents are in the public is completely irrelevant. All documents that are filed in a courtroom are public. That doesn't give us the right to comment on them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just wait, Member. Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: For the first time after many years, these documents today allow the opposition, the public, to have what the government has always had — to be on the same page. The only thing that hasn't changed is the government's unwillingness to answer questions, and that's not good enough.

The B.C. Rail deal was tainted. The fairness report was a sham. The government worked hand in hand with the fairness adviser to rein in a political scandal. That's what these documents show. It broke a key election promise. These things may mean nothing to those people, but the people of British Columbia deserve better. They deserve to know the real truth about a public asset worth billions of dollars.

Again, to the Premier: when will he answer these questions to British Columbians and tell them how he can stand by a fairness report that was tainted and that British Columbians know about today?

Hon. W. Oppal: Why don't we let the Supreme Court judge tell us what those documents mean?

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CARE STANDARDS
FOR ADDICTION RECOVERY HOMES

C. James: In 2002 the B.C. Liberals deregulated recovery homes, putting some of the most vulnerable people in our province at risk. People struggling with addictions are no longer protected by even minimum standards of care. That decision has led to serious complaints and very serious problems all across our province.

The minister announced a review of unlicensed homes back in 2006. Years later, communities are still waiting for action. Today we finally hear the minister say: "Don't worry. We'll get around to it." Well, that's not good enough.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Why are communities still waiting for the B.C. Liberals to fix a problem that they created when they deregulated these homes?

[1410]

Hon. G. Abbott: This is an important issue. No question about it. But one thing we won't be doing is what the NDP did in the late 1990s, and that is threatening to put people like the Union Gospel Mission out of their business by the unfortunate regulation that they visited on those recovery houses in the late 1990s.

We are looking for an appropriate balance here. There is work underway in Interior Health around the licensing, registration and regulation of recovery houses. We will be bringing appropriate regulations into place to ensure that we can build on the work that we've done at the Burnaby centre for dual diagnosis, the work we've done at the Keremeos Crossing for long-term treatment for young people affected by addictions. We'll continue to build on the growing number of mental health and addiction supported beds that we have in the province of British Columbia.

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

C. James: It's very clear from this government and this minister. Appropriate balance means no action — no action for the vulnerable people in this province. When headlines become a political embarrassment for this government, they pretend they're serious about addressing a problem.

In 2006, after news reports of exploitation of recovery homes became a political problem for this minister, he put together a review. Now here we are, more than two years later. This government still hasn't acted on this problem.

This isn't about numbers. This is about people. This is about sisters and brothers, husbands and wives, daughters and sons. That's who this is about.

For the last seven years this government's lack of oversight has meant no control over the number of individuals residing in facilities. It's meant no certainty that the residents would have access to the basic needs such as food and furniture, no minimum standards or codes of conduct by the operators.

My question again is to the minister. We've seen these promises before. We've seen the minister say: "We're going to review." I want to ask him today. I don't want words; I want action. When are you going to do something about those homes?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is tempting indeed to defer to the expertise of the opposition in terms of empty words. If you ever want to see the definition of empty words, it was a mental health plan in 1998 — $125 million without one penny behind it, not one penny behind the mental health plan in 1998.
[ Page 14157 ]

If you want to see action that was misguided, look at the licensing regime that the NDP attempted to visit upon recovery houses in the late 1990s, threatening to put wonderful operators like the Union Gospel Mission out of their very important work. That was the kind of record that the NDP had in the 1990s.

On the other hand, our government is the first jurisdiction in Canada to bring in a centre for people affected by concurrent disorders, mental health and addictions — a first in Canada. For the first time in the province of British Columbia, the Keremeos Crossing for young people affected by addiction disorders. And to close, Mr. Speaker, literally hundreds more mental health and addiction supported beds in the province of British Columbia.

A. Dix: Well, you want to hear…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …about empty words, hon. Speaker. The Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition calling for more regulation, said: "We simply can't wash our hands of these people." Listen to the Minister of Housing calling for more regulation.

So what was the Premier thinking on December 12, 2001? What was he thinking when he signed that order and deregulated the entire sector? What was he thinking? Was he thinking about the betrayal of the people that he said he was going to defend? Was he thinking about that?

In 2006, after the city of Surrey, the city of Abbotsford and other groups took the minister on, on this question, the minister announced, the government announced a task force.

[1415]

What happened to that task force? Where is it? When did it meet? Where are the reports? What is going on, on this issue? When is the minister going to act?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's well known — the division of labour in this House. They talk. We act.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: They put in place a $125 million mental health plan to deal with Riverview — doesn't have one cent behind it. On the other hand, we have undertaken, through the Riverview devolution project…. We now have close to 400 homelike units across the province of British Columbia where people with mental health and addictions issues can get the kind of treatment they need.

In community mental health beds, we've added 2,836 units — an increase of 57 percent. In community addictions, another 874 beds — a 150 percent increase. The last place we would ever look for advice on regulating is this group that practically destroyed the non-profit sector in the late 1990s.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Four years after the Premier broke his word on this question, the minister — after calls from the city of Surrey, from the city of Abbotsford, from people across British Columbia…. The government said they were going to do a task force.

What was it about? Sherry Mumford, Fraser Valley health authority's manager of addiction services: "The task force will look at ways of monitoring recovery homes." She expects the task force will have its first meeting in September. Health Ministry spokesperson Sarah Plank said they're looking at setting up a registration system.

What happened? They didn't meet. All that's solid melts into air. They didn't meet. It's outrageous. On a serious issue of public concern, to announce a task force and then not have the task force meet, and then three years later, having done nothing, having abandoned people, come back with this display of arrogance….

When did the task force meet? What happened to the task force? When are they going to act on unlicensed recovery homes?

Hon. G. Abbott: We are acting, and we're acting under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. If these members think that we're going to act like they did in the 1990s when that member was such an integral part of the Premier's office in the province of British Columbia, they're wrong. We don't want to go back to a place where organizations like the Union Gospel Mission have to worry about how high the windows are in their facilities, or else they're going to get closed down.

That's the kind of reception that non-profits got from this government back in the 1990s. They didn't care about the outcomes. All they care about is regulation. We will not follow that model. We will have appropriate regulation, and we'll do it in a way that makes sense for profits and non-profits in this province.

B. Ralston: In February 2007 the city of Surrey issued a groundbreaking report called Crime Reduction Strategy. One of the recommendations was to work with the Ministry of Health to establish a recovery house accreditation board to set standards. Proper recovery is essential, as the report points out, to rehabilitate and reintegrate addicts and stop the cycle of crime.

Will the minister concede that not only has he failed neighbourhoods in Surrey, but his government has failed to implement an important part of a crime reduction strategy?
[ Page 14158 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: I can tell the people of British Columbia who failed. It was this former government, this former NDP government that had a mental health plan, an addictions plan that they never put one single penny toward.

[1420]

It was the NDP that clearly failed the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: I know they don't like to see the record of success we've built in the province of British Columbia. The first jurisdiction in Canada to bring in, at Burnaby — and I'm sure they opposed it because they oppose everything — the Burnaby centre for people facing concurrent disorders of mental health and addiction, the first in Canada. We acted. They talked.

Keremeos Crossing — first in British Columbia. They talked; we acted. They closed down Riverview, turning people out onto the street without supports. We've added across this province close to 400 units for people affected by serious mental disorders, and we're very proud of our record.

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE STRATEGY

R. Austin: Stephen Harper promised a billion dollars in federal money to British Columbia to help address the pine beetle epidemic. A freedom-of-information request obtained by Radio NL in Kamloops shows that over the past three years, the total money received from the federal government is only $42 million.

Can the Premier please tell British Columbians why this Liberal government failed to secure the billion dollars that Mr. Harper promised to help forest-dependent communities impacted by the beetle epidemic?

Hon. K. Krueger: The federal government, in fact, has delivered on its promises. Through federal agencies, they have distributed the $200 million that they promised — $100 million of it through Natural Resources Canada programs, some $42 million through infrastructure — and $40 million alone was spent on stopping the eastern spread of the epidemic in British Columbia.

We're really pleased with our relationship with the federal government and the way they and the municipalities of this province — the trust that we have established — are all collaborating to defend the interests of constituents in rural British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: The Conservative MP for Cariboo–Prince George has now admitted that the $200 million, which should have been in the budget this year for pine beetle, has gone to other priorities.

Last week the Premier stated in this House that when he asks for help from Mr. Harper, he gets listened to. In amongst his requests for the Olympics and Gateway and infrastructure, I guess the Premier must have forgotten to ask for the pine beetle money then.

We had a solid promise of a billion dollars for B.C.'s pine beetle–impacted forests and communities. The B.C. Liberal government secured less than 5 percent of that. My question to the Premier is quite simple. How did you fail to secure a billion dollars?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Krueger: The member is wrong, as those members are consistently wrong. Unlike the NDP government of the '90s, which picked fights with the federal government and all of our neighbours — and everyone trying to distract attention from their inabilities — we have a solid relationship with the federal government, which has committed another billion dollars across the country, of which British Columbia will receive a $130 million share — already committed a billion dollars across the country.

We have an active community development trust fund that has now helped over 4,000 displaced forest workers in British Columbia. Whether it's bridging workers to retirement, whether it's helping them with tuition to retrain or whether it's creating job opportunities, programs, opportunities in the provinces — including a $300,000 project that's presently underway employing six workers in the member's own hometown of Terrace — the federal government and this government have an excellent collaboration.

Both governments care deeply for the displaced natural resource workers of British Columbia. We're putting $30 million into the rural B.C. secretariat. We expect them to match it. We're proud of our record and the federal government's.

[1425]

Mr. Speaker: A reminder to members: even when you're heckling, you don't name people by name.

B. Simpson: The promise from the Prime Minister was clear — $1 billion for British Columbia for mountain pine beetle. Mr. Harris in Prince George is very clear. The $200 million that was supposed to be for the coming years is gone, evaporated. It's not there.

Mr. Speaker, 14 million hectares of B.C.'s forests — 38,000 Stanley Parks — have been impacted, and this Premier can't secure a promise for a billion dollars to address that issue. Here's the reason why.
[ Page 14159 ]

In 2005 the federal Industry Minister at the time warned this government that they would not get a ten-year aid package for mountain pine beetle until the province came up with a detailed plan. To quote him: "We can't just keep throwing money out to the province."

The reason we've lost this billion dollars is because no detailed plan was forthcoming. If we're wrong about that, then I ask the Premier to table the plan. Put the plan on the table — $1 billion for B.C. for mountain pine beetle. Put the plan on the table.

Hon. P. Bell: The member is wrong. There's no question about it. First of all, the member should acknowledge that the billion dollars was to be spread at $100 million a year. Let's look at the facts. I think that's worth pursuing, since this would be the completion of the second year of the program.

First of all, there's been $72 million spread amongst different communities to focus on the eastward trend of the mountain pine beetle and make sure we control that effectively. That includes both public and private lands. There's been $17 million to protect forest resources in communities across the province from wildfire risk, a key initiative that's been driven hard by the aboriginal communities and small communities in this province — absolutely critical to them.

There's been $11 million focused on geoscience recovery to create a new industry and opportunity for us to spread our economy around and really diversify it. Also, $44 million for transportation infrastructure spending, $36 million through economic diversification for forest-dependent communities and $20 million for airport upgrades.

The member is wrong — $200 million over the last two years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: In this government's kitchen-sink strategy, which hasn't been updated since August of 2007…. They haven't even updated their own motherhood-and-apple-pie strategy. It states in there…. First off, it doesn't mention anything about airports. It does say, however, that in order to address the mountain pine beetle land issue only — the land issue only — all of the forest health activities, the silviculture activities…. This is a direct quote from the document: "Initial assessments suggest that a total of approximately $800 million to $1 billion will be required to carry out this work alone."

There is no money in the provincial budget for mountain pine beetle for this work. This government has lost the billion dollars from Mr. Harper, unless the Minister of Forests is calling MP Dick Harris a liar. He says it's gone.

So the easy answer for the Premier is: give us the detailed billion-dollar plan that was asked for. Put it on the table. Put this issue to rest.

Hon. P. Bell: The member is absolutely wrong on this issue, and had the member taken the time…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: …to pay attention this morning to a public release we did about information specific to that member's area, to the Quesnel area, he'd know that we have a whole new body of science that's developed, which indicates to us that we're going to have a much greater shelf life for the mountain pine beetle volumes. In fact, we're going to start managing those stands differently.

[1430]

If he had taken the time to look at the website this morning, he would have seen the PowerPoint presentation that I provided to the media, which says that things are shifting and that we're going to get increased value out of these stands.

We believe in the future of the forest industry. We think that if we manage this industry carefully and cautiously, it will sustain the economies of rural B.C. over an extended period of time.

All that material that the member just thinks is going to go to waste…. There's 500 million cubic metres of it that just came back into our inventory. There is a future for rural B.C.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued debate on the supplementary estimates, beginning with Transportation.

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

On Vote 43(S): ministry operations, $20,000,000 (continued).
[ Page 14160 ]

M. Karagianis: This morning I was just starting to get into some questioning of the minister concerning tolls. I know that the original plan on the first privatization scheme for building the Port Mann talked about a 35-year contract that would go to the private consortium, and that, out of that, the $3 toll per vehicle would go to them for 35 years.

[1435]

That would have accrued to them about $14 billion, perhaps more. That's just based on a simple car going one way on the bridge. It doesn't talk about trucks or any vehicles that might be more than a $3 toll. This is just based on straight extrapolation of the ministry's own number for traffic volume projections.

I'd like to know from the minister. He talked about one of the criteria here in the tendering process was based on a $3 toll. Has that changed, given the fact that the privatization scheme has now fallen apart? It's collapsed. We're now doing a publicly managed design-build. How does that change the tolling structure?

Hon. K. Falcon: There's no change whatsoever. The toll remains exactly as we said it would be. It's electronic tolling. It is a $3 toll. That does not change.

The member should know that the toll comes off when the infrastructure is paid off. It's just that simple. The example I use is the Coquihalla Highway. All three phases of the Coquihalla Highway cost $849 million for government to construct and finance. We have a policy in the government that when the infrastructure costs, the total costs, are paid off, then it is a policy of this government that the tolls will come off.

That's why the Premier and government announced at the end of September that we would be removing the tolls, as we did, from the Coquihalla Highway, and just as it will be on the Port Mann bridge. When it's paid off, the tolls will come off.

M. Karagianis: Well, based on the minister's own traffic volume projections and just a very simple basis of $3 per car…. We know it'll be more than that for trucks, I'm sure. I'm sure not every vehicle that goes across there will be charged the same, although perhaps that is in the minister's plans.

That would accrue to over $14 billion in 35 years. Is 35 years still the goal? What, in reality, is the cost here? The minister said it's $2.46 billion to build the project. Are the maintenance and operations in that magnitude, that we would be looking at collecting $14 billion?

Hon. K. Falcon: One of the reasons, Member…. You may recall when we were debating the Transportation Investment Corporation, which is the Crown corporation being set up to oversee and implement the Port Mann/Highway 1 project. This is the Crown corporation the members opposite voted against. We wanted to have a full and transparent vehicle to show — which we will show, through the Transportation Investment Corporation — all of the costs and all of the revenues derived during the period of time in which the Port Mann/Highway 1 project is not only under construction, but while toll revenues are being generated.

All of that information will be available. It will be annually reported. It will show every dollar that comes in, every dollar that goes out. It will show all the costs that were associated with the project, and it will show them being paid down.

The reason we wanted to do this is we wanted to make sure that there was going to be full and open and transparent accountability on that side, because at some date in the future a government will reach a point where those tolls have paid off the costs of the infrastructure — that includes all of the costs, not just the capital costs, but all of the financing costs associated with it.

[1440]

And when that time comes — just as we did on the Coquihalla Highway; we removed the tolls as we said we would, because that is a policy of the government — we want to make sure that a future government will be held to account and have to report out to the public where they're at.

Now, if a future government makes a decision that's contrary to that policy, they will have to do so publicly, and they will have to explain and justify that to the population, and that's as it should be.

M. Karagianis: The minister has not been clear here on what the costs are. We have the initial $2.46 billion–plus, obviously, borrowing costs on that and the maintenance and operations of that.

Now, I know that the minister speculated in the newspaper, in the Surrey Now recently, that there's some risk here because maybe the projected toll revenues won't be there. I'm not entirely sure now where that sits in the context of the new project. I mean, certainly, when the original privatization scheme would have demanded that a certain payback to the private consortium occurred on the tolls, but in the case of the province, where this is publicly managed…. You know, we're going to have the project finished by these two contractors, and then the province takes on the ongoing operations, maintenance, upkeep for that.

So I'm not entirely sure on what direct relationship the tolls will have to payback. Is there an expectation that the tolls will achieve certain levels every year of payback? And again, how would you base that? Based on what costs are the expectations?

The minister has speculated that maybe the revenue tolls won't be there, and that could very well be. How does that bear on the borrowing, on the cost of the maintenance and operations, on the payback of the interest on the loan? And is the minister clear on exactly what these costs will be?
[ Page 14161 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, the member again refers to a failed privatization scheme. So let's understand what the member is talking about here, or thinks she is talking about.

Apparently, partnership arrangements, according to the NDP critic for Transportation, are failed privatization schemes, in spite of the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out to her projects in every part of this province that have been P3s that are being actually recognized and have received awards and recognition around the world for the success in which they have achieved the objectives the government set out — i.e., to get very important, complex, large infrastructure built and constructed in a manner that protects the taxpayer from risks and delivers those projects on or ahead of schedule.

I've itemized those projects. The Kicking Horse Canyon is one that came in 18 months ahead of schedule, on budget, a project that has been celebrated by her own colleague who points out that it has employed virtually 70 percent of the community of Golden. It's had unparalleled benefits on the highway network. In fact, it has improved safety outcomes. It has reduced the travel time for commercial truckers up to an hour.

Clearly, that is a huge benefit. But that would, in the demagoguery of the member opposite, be a failed privatization scheme.

The Sea to Sky Highway — another apparent failed privatization scheme that's been delivered six months ahead of schedule, on budget.

The Canada line project, a $2 billion…. Apparently, another failed privatization scheme, and it's being delivered ahead of schedule and on budget.

I just can't imagine how terrible it must be for us as a government to have to deal with all these consecutive failures. It is really a record that must be just so terrible for us to have to manage.

But fortunately, the facts are true and different to anyone else who looks at this situation other than the completely ideological members of the NDP who insist…. It's important for the public that are watching this to know this — that what the NDP government is saying is that they want every project to be built the same way we built the fast ferries and, in fact, in fairness to the NDP, the same way that the convention centre was built. That is, the government will assume all the risks.

So what happens? In the convention centre, it went…. Granted there were some scope changes and some additions made, but nevertheless, that project went hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. The difference, of course, between the convention centre and the fast ferries is that the convention centre will be operating, it will generate billions of dollars of return for the province of British Columbia, it will pay itself off multiple times in the years to come, and we all recognize that.

[1445]

Unfortunately, the fast ferries continue to be just across the harbour from the convention centre or roped up and sitting there rusting away, to the benefit of no one. It was a 100 percent write-off.

We as a government say that we accept responsibility for the convention centre overruns. We tried to do that as a private-public partnership model. In fact, we tried to do it as the failed privatization scheme that the member keeps talking about.

Sadly, in government back in 2002 we didn't have the expertise within government to deliver those projects. That's why we set up Partnerships B.C. We knew we needed to bring in outside expertise that could help government understand how to evaluate projects, how to put them through an appropriate and fair and competitive tendering process to ensure that the taxpayers and government would receive value when we went forward with these partnership arrangements.

And time after time we have seen enormous successes — not just enormous successes that we're saying are enormous successes. These have been validated through the value-for-money reports, which are reports that are done to compare what it would have cost if we had delivered it in the traditional manner that government delivers projects — in other words, the NDP way of delivering projects.

We have seen in every single project…. I encourage the member to go look at those value-for-money reports, because the benefits to the taxpayer are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Those reports are independently evaluated by the Auditor General. The Auditor General looks at those reports and says: the risks and the assumptions that underlie these reports — are they fair, and are they reasonable? In every case, the Auditor General has said they are fair, and they are reasonable.

So the Auditor General confirms the good news. The awards received from around the world recognizing these projects for not only their architectural and engineering brilliance but the fact that they were delivered ahead of schedule and on budget — those are all recognized.

The only group left, apparently, that doesn't recognize the value is the NDP opposition and their public sector CUPE backers. They're the only two that continue to insist these are "failed privatization schemes." And how tragic is that — that they continue to grasp onto these ridiculous terms and continue to try and defend the indefensible when all the evidence points in the other direction?

I have to say that, because every time the member puts out that kind of nonsense and empty rhetoric, it is important that we respond and set the record straight and let the public know where we think these things make sense.

And they don't make sense on every project. I want the public to know that. We examine every project on its
[ Page 14162 ]
own merits, and we will make a determination based on the merits of that individual project as to whether it is a good candidate for a private-public partnership.

We do that because we are trying to transfer risk. We don't believe the government is best able to manage that risk. For goodness' sakes, if there is one piece of evidence that I think can be held true…. If you look at the history of the province and other provinces across Canada, I think you can recognize that there are probably — in the case of major, large, complex projects — lots of examples where government weren't the best individuals to actually manage and oversee the risk. That's why we have the risk transfer.

In this particular P3 arrangement, we entered into negotiations with the consortium, and there are two parts of that. There is the design-build construction component, and there is the financing component. We loved what they had on the design-construction side of it. In fact, we are moving forward on that basis. There's exceptional value. There's an exceptional schedule of delivery, and there are two contractors that have an outstanding record in British Columbia for delivering this kind of large, complex, major project very, very effectively and efficiently.

On the financial side of it, we could not come to terms that were acceptable to us in the province of British Columbia. Now, I know that's a shock for the NDP. They can't believe that we walk away from something when we enter into a negotiation. I'll tell the member — I've said it before; I'll say it again — unless it makes sense to us, we don't do a deal.

They were willing to do a deal with us. They brought the debt and equity partners to the table to do that deal. But the terms that would be required we didn't think served the interest of the public at the end of the day, because we evaluate where that is in terms of value for money. I know that the member has challenges with that.

We also…. I said this very forthrightly at the press conference when we announced that we wouldn't proceed with the financing piece of the partnership arrangement. I said very openly at that press conference that there is a downside to this for government. The downside is that we assume risks that we were trying to transfer on the traffic revenue side.

[1450]

We should be upfront about that with the public, because that is not a risk that is transferred. We have protected ourselves on the construction and the schedule risk. That is all transferred over to the private proponents, and that is a good thing. They've got a record of delivery that I think will give lots of British Columbians a sense of comfort in terms of the major projects that they are currently involved with and how well they are building them.

But on the traffic revenue side, that is now a risk of the province. That is a risk we assume by engaging in commercial financing through the provincial borrowing powers. We acknowledge that upfront. We should be clear about that.

What is that risk? Well, that risk could be anywhere from a range of $200 million to $300 million either way. That's our best estimate. In other words, we could be to the good, or we could be to the not good. But that is a risk. We acknowledge that risk upfront.

We think it's a relatively manageable risk, because we think that the independent evaluations that were undertaken by three different internationally recognized traffic management firms…. All they do is do traffic forecasting. They looked at the project, came forward with a series of traffic forecasts. The province has them. They're available on the EAO website. We're very comfortable with those numbers. We think that those are very manageable and achievable numbers, particularly given that we expect to see over one million more people move into the Lower Mainland over the next 20 years.

There's no question that the Lower Mainland has always been an attractive place for folks to relocate, set up businesses and to move to. That is likely to continue in the future. When that continues, we will see that reflected in the forecast.

So we think it's a manageable risk, but we're very upfront with the public that that is now a risk that is with the public. It was not a transferred risk.

M. Karagianis: As always, the minister doth protest too much. I haven't talked about the Kicking Horse or any other project here. In fact, what I'm speaking to is $100 million in loans, investments and other requirements, funding for an investment in the Transportation Investment Corporation related to the Port Mann project. I'm only talking about the Port Mann project.

I know the minister has continued to kind of go on these protestations about all his other P3 schemes. Frankly, I'm just looking at this failed privatization scheme and the headlines. Surrey Now: "Port Mann P3 Falls Through." This was a big news item here last week. No secret to everybody that this privatization scheme fell apart.

Oddly enough, while the minister was busy decrying how public projects have been mismanaged and manhandled…. Three years in the making for a privatization plan here that falls apart, and where is this going? Right back into public management. Now this is a publicly procured project. So the government can't be that afraid or horrified by public management of projects, or I guess we'd be looking for another privatization plan to build this in its entirety as well as maintain and operate it.

The question here on tolls. What I hear is that the government hasn't really taken any concrete steps to look for the best deal for the taxpayer. Despite the previous project being $3.3 billion and a 35-year contract for those dollars to go to the private consortium for 35 years and none of it being reinvested here in British Columbia,
[ Page 14163 ]
we're still using the same model. I guess the minister hasn't adequately explained why we are still using the same tolling model on a project that has changed considerably in value and scope.

If, in fact, the minister's own traffic numbers are correct, we are talking in excess of $14 billion here over the next 35 years. Is the minister saying that that is, in fact, what taxpayers are going to be on the hook for to pay for this project? Is that the true cost, then, of this project from the day it starts, out 35 years or until such time as the government decides the tolls have paid it off? Is this, in fact, a $14 billion project, not a $2.46 billion project?

[1455]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, sometimes I don't know where to begin. So let's try and understand this for the benefit of the public watching. When you hear the member opposite talk about how this deal has fallen apart, clearly the member does not get off the Island. I think the member should get off the Island.

I'd be happy to introduce her to 400 construction workers that are currently building the bridge that the member thinks is falling apart. I sometimes feel like I'm in that Bizarro cartoon where everything is not as it seems.

The fact of the matter is that it's under construction, Member. The member even acknowledged in question period yesterday…. She was trying to, you know, mock the Minister of Transportation by saying that I promised the piers would be rising out of the river by election time. She had to acknowledge: "Well, actually, piers are being constructed as we speak."

M. Karagianis: I said pier, not piers.

Hon. K. Falcon: Sorry?

M. Karagianis: Pier — as in one.

Hon. K. Falcon: Oh, pier — as in one. Well, Member, I have good news for you. I was two months off on the river. It will be in the summer that the piers will be coming out of the water, so I was very close, but not always perfect. I acknowledge that.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, there are 400 construction workers currently building it. There will be 8,000 in total as we move forward on this project. What part of that does the member have a problem with? How does the member, even in her wildest dreams, call that a deal that has fallen apart?

Member, all that has happened is that the financing piece…. We weren't able to come to terms on the financing piece. So what we are doing is we are financing it the same way B.C. Hydro will finance its projects, which are paid for through user fees and rates that are paid by Hydro ratepayers. It's exactly the same way here. I don't know how I can explain it any simpler.

We get a fiscal agency agreement for roughly a $3 billion loan that goes into the Transportation Investment Corporation. It builds the infrastructure, and that is paid off by users that use the bridge. That's the fair way of doing it. We're not asking the taxpayers in Prince George or Fort St. John or Prince Rupert or other parts of the province that may never use it, or rarely use it, to pay for it. It's being paid for by the users.

When the toll is finished paying off the debt and the amortization of that debt and the interest associated with that debt and the construction cost of that debt, then the tolls come off. And it's all transparent because it's within this Crown corporation that we set up in this Legislature that the NDP voted against.

We put that in place to make sure it was transparent so that every year the public could see what the original costs were for building it, what the debt associated with financing that construction cost is over the 35-year term that there's a concession agreement in place and what all the expenses associated with it were — the operating and maintenance costs that the member refers to.

All of that will be reported out, and every year that will be made available to the public. Why did we do that? Because we want to make sure it is transparent and accountable — different, actually than the Coquihalla, because the Coquihalla revenues disappeared into general government revenues. It was hard, if not impossible, for the public to actually figure out when it was paid off.

We wanted to do this project differently. We wanted to make sure that all of that is transparent. I, for the life of me, don't understand how any part of that would be too difficult to understand.

It's transparent. It is open. The $100 million that we're talking about today in supplementary estimates is equity that goes into the Transportation Investment Corporation, that allows the corporation to start to make those costs — the property acquisition or the oversight of the project or whatever those expenses may be…. They have the dollars and the equity to start undertaking that work. It will all be transparent. It will all be available.

In fact, if there's not an irony of ironies, it actually — in a bizarre way, even though the members have opposed the Transportation Investment Corporation, even though they've opposed the Port Mann bridge project — kind of mirrors what I think I've been listening to as criticisms for a long time from the NDP. How ironic is that? Yet they're still apparently having trouble understanding this.
[ Page 14164 ]

The Transportation Investment Corporation — $100 million initial equity going into it to be used to build and construct the project. We will enter into a fiscal agency agreement to take approximately $3 billion of a government-backed loan, commercially self-supported, paid for through the toll revenues, very similar to what B.C. Hydro does every day when they go into the markets, and it will be paid off through the users, just as Hydro's debt is paid off through their ratepayers.

I hope that answers the question for the member.

[1500]

M. Karagianis: Let's just be clear here. The minister has said a couple of different things that could confuse the public a lot. I know that we canvassed this morning the fact that the contract has only just been signed. Maybe the ink is not even dry on it yet. Macquarie Group is out of the deal. The agreement, the design-build fixed-price contract with Kiewit and Flatiron — I understood the minister to say this morning that the contract had only just been signed. It was only announced last week that a piece of this P3 has fallen apart.

I'm sure the minister is very well intentioned when he gets personal and talks about me getting off the Island and going over to see what's going on over there. I'm sure he means no personal slight in that and is probably trying in some way to be humorous about the situation — although I'm not entirely sure. I know the minister said this morning that the contract maybe has just been signed, so I'm not sure what the rant is about the construction is underway.

If the deal has only just been crystallized and signed since the announcement last week that the financial partner…. Let's be clear. The minister said very clearly that we had to purchase all of the design and engineering because Macquarie…. It was their deal. They were the top dog. It was their project, and we had to purchase back all of the rights to that.

Let's not be too coy about the fact that the deal is only just now coming together in this new iteration as a publicly managed design-build contract. Given the fact that this is somewhat of a new deal — same players obviously, same cost interestingly and same tolling fee — then my question to the minister is: is he telling us that the $14 billion that will be collected for the next 35 years, give or take a couple of hundred million, as he said…? Is that the true cost of the build, the financing and the maintenance and operation of this, or is it something different?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, it's not $14 billion. I could get into a discussion about nominal dollars, but I'm not even going to go there. All I'm going to say to the member is that all I am suggesting is…. I'm not trying to be critical of the fact that the member lives on the Island. I'm just suggesting that if she takes a ferry over and goes and visits the site, she might be surprised to see that there are hundreds of people working on the project.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: When did you visit the site, Member?

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. Order, Member. Order.

Hon. K. Falcon: See, the member is confused again. The member is confused, and I'm going to help alleviate her….

Interjections.

The Chair: Minister, just sit down for a minute, please.

I just remind members: please, the dialogue is through the Chair.

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, Member. There is an agreement in place. The agreement has been assigned to the province. We went through that this morning. Back in October, the member should also know that we gave a limited notice to proceed. That means the construction can get started on the bridge. The reason we did that is because we wanted to make sure the schedule was not in any way going to be impacted by the negotiations.

Why did we do that? Because we're committed to building the bridge. We said from the beginning that we're going to build the bridge, whether or not we can arrange a private sector financing package that makes sense for taxpayers. That is simply in the negotiation.

We'll have the negotiation; we'll see how it goes. If it provides value for taxpayers, we do that piece. If it doesn't, we don't. It is that simple. That's why there is work underway today. They have signed the contract. We've got an agreement on the contract, and we'll be executing that agreement to continue with the balance of the works.

I'm not sure what part of the site the member visited. I would be curious to hear about that, because I'd be happy to take the member down and show her the piers that are under construction and the workers that are on the construction.

[1505]

Actually, it would be an ideal time to also show the member, because it's at the same location…. You can see the exceptional work being done on the $1 billion South Fraser perimeter road, which is 7,000 jobs on that particular project, which will ultimately be working to build that very important piece of infrastructure.

Thank goodness that we've got a Premier and a government that have been focusing on the economy
[ Page 14165 ]
and recognizing that these kinds of investments are so important to the economy. As we go forward, having a strong economy and having a government that was thinking about the economy and investing in these kinds of investments that provide other benefits — environmental benefits, public transit benefits in terms of the RapidBus, cycling benefits…. All of those form part of this project that is moving forward.

As I said earlier, the tolls pay off all the costs — whatever the costs are, Member. We've talked about those costs — the construction cost of $2.46 billion — and then the only other costs are amortization of debt and the interest costs over the term of the agreement.

I just don't know how I can explain it any more simply than that, except to say that every year it will all be publicly disclosed and transparent. The member can spend as much time as she wants looking through all those numbers and analyzing them and asking questions about them if the member wishes. That's as it should be.

M. Karagianis: Obviously, the minister and I are not going to be able to actually get to a real answer here on what I'm asking. So I simply throw my hands up and say: "If we can't have a discussion about these tolls that makes sense to the listeners out there about what it is that they are going to be paying for and for how long and whether it's a good value for them or not…."

You know, I'm not sure why the minister has a problem understanding that. He said himself that the contract is only just being signed, so I think these are legitimate questions to be asking. Is it still the same deal? Is it still a good deal? Are we looking for a better deal now that we've changed partners in this project? But the minister doesn't want to answer that.

Let me just ask a couple of questions about the $100 million. We have here the $100 million that's coming out of this current supplementary estimate, but I see a further $100 million set aside in 2009-10, in that fiscal year, in the 2009 estimates.

Is this additional money for the Port Mann project? It's going into the Transportation Investment Corporation, and the minister did talk about procuring $3 billion in a loan. So does it mean that we are loaning this corporation $10 million now and $10 million in the future, and that will be paid back? How does that fit into the financing structure that the minister has talked about?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes. The $100 million in the supplementary estimates that we are currently debating today will go into the TIC — the Transportation Investment Corporation — as equity. The $100 million that the member correctly sees in the budget for the upcoming fiscal will also go into the Crown corporation as equity. The balance will be in the form of a fiscal agency loan undertaken, similar to what Hydro would do when they're borrowing dollars for projects. We will undertake a fiscal agency loan for the balance to construct and build the project.

M. Karagianis: These two $100 million acquisitions here — are they considered and treated as an investment? Do they pay back dividends on that?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes. They will be repaid back with a return.

M. Karagianis: Now, I know that earlier the minister did say that some of these dollars were going towards the initial $94 million that was expected to be spent in 2008-2009 on what he has identified here as the ongoing construction.

How does that relate, then, to the $3 billion loan, or is it simply put back with some investment yield on it from that loan when it's taken out? I would assume that the loan will go directly against the entire construction project and that in fact this money is being used up now to get construction going but would have to be treated fairly as a preloan.

[1510]

Hon. K. Falcon: All the debt in equity involved in the project earns a return. All of that is paid for through the electronic tolls. When it is fully paid for, the electronic tolls come off.

M. Karagianis: I know that I have another member from the opposition that would like to ask some questions, and I would cede the floor at this point to that person.

G. Gentner: I, too, would like to ask the minister some questions relative to Gateway, not necessarily that of tolling, but in particular the supplementary budget, $100 million, etc., relative to the South Fraser perimeter road. I am with a community that will be heavily impacted by whatever decision has been made, and this is a project, hon. Chair, that will unalterably destroy farmland.

I know there are some mitigation measures being conducted by the government. However, there's going to be many hundreds of acres of British Columbia's most valuable soil-based farming — in all of British Columbia, if not all of North America…. We are also going to wait and see what's going to happen to the impacts of that to the environment out that way, particularly relative to Crescent Slough, the intertidal waterways.

Burns Bog, we know…. Regarding the mitigation, the minister has assured us, but there has been a failed attempt to deal with some of the concerns of the Burns Bog Conservation Society and members relative to the wetland. The GVRD — or should we call it the conservation group that is working with the GVRD, or Metro Vancouver? — and the science advisory panel are very
[ Page 14166 ]
much concerned with how that road will destroy valuable wetland habitat.

Of course, we've seen what it will do, particularly with some endangered species that the minister knows well about, and how we saw the goalposts change, so to speak, in particular with regards to the environmental assessment office.

Delta council, of course, has for some time had a better way. The minister is well aware of it, and his ministry has denied listening to the concerns of the council. Reluctantly, that council has been handed a big stick and the engineering department of that council is now working alongside with the Gateway people.

But the biggest impact will be felt by everyday commuters driving in and through North Delta, not only in North Delta but in Surrey. In particular, neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods where I live in and neighbourhoods throughout all of North Delta will really be held hostage by more traffic congestion because of the South Fraser perimeter road.

The current ministry has, really, a misguided plan for the future. It is a plan that is steeped in theories that go way back 30 years when the automobile was king, when we were looking at eight-cylinder cars and long-finned eight-cylinder Parisiennes, if you will, that guided the roadways and still seems to be guiding the mindset of this ministry that's certainly outdated.

Even Gateway's CEO recently, at a Delta council meeting on February 12, I believe, gave an update regarding the South Fraser perimeter road, and he was questioned by council on how traffic would be affected by the South Fraser perimeter road. The chief executive officer stated emphatically…. I have to correct that. It was the chief executive adviser, so to speak.

He said that much of the Deltaport traffic movements heading to points north would now be diverted away from Massey Tunnel to that of the Alex Fraser Bridge. That was a major admission — that the truck traffic would now find a new major artery over northbound because it's easier to access the Alex Fraser Bridge. He said that. He admitted that in council chambers.

So the purpose of the South Fraser perimeter road, really, will be to plug up the Alex Fraser Bridge. It's not there to relieve traffic. It's there to feed traffic to the South Fraser perimeter road into, of course, the Alex Fraser Bridge.

The South Fraser perimeter road traffic heading west the other way from Surrey…. We know what happened, hon. Chair, regarding the unfortunate closure of the Pattullo Bridge. Close to 80,000 movements were redirected, and it was a precursor to what will happen when the toll evaders come forward and avoid the Port Mann bridge once it's completed.

[1515]

What we witnessed was gridlock, gridlock, gridlock. It was total chaos. It was bumper-to-bumper havoc in my community of North Delta, and this is the vision, I would have to suggest, that this ministry is foisting on my constituents of North Delta.

Make no mistake that the South Fraser perimeter road will turn the Nordel interchange into probably the largest pinch point, congested area anywhere in the history of the Lower Mainland. This is where all the traffic is going to converge. It's going to find its pinch. It's all going to be trying to find its way on to the Alex Fraser Bridge at the Nordel interchange.

Congestion will be worse than at any time since the opening of the Alex Fraser Bridge because of it. Nordel will be at a standstill all the way into Surrey, and 72nd Avenue for 20 or 30 blocks will be a parking lot well into Surrey…

An Hon. Member: Point of order, Madam Chair.

G. Gentner: …while joggers will become….

The Chair: Member. Order, Member.

Point of Order

Hon. K. Falcon: Madam Chair, I have tried very hard to work as carefully as I can with the members. We are here discussing a $100 million supplementary estimate for the Transportation Investment Corporation, which is building the Port Mann bridge and Highway 1 improvements. It has nothing to do with the project this individual is talking about, and he is rambling on and on and on about something totally unrelated to the supplementary estimates we're here to discuss.

The Chair: Thank you for that, Minister.

I would ask the member to return to the vote and tailor your remarks appropriate to the vote that is being debated.

Debate Continued

G. Gentner: My understanding was that this was inclusive of Gateway projects. It's also inclusive, imperative, that when we talk about the movement of traffic south of the Fraser, you would think there would be a comprehensive plan that would look at the impacts of how this project at the Port Mann would impact my community with the congestion, which this minister has not addressed.

In particular, I'm curious to know: is there any money available here in this supplementary budget regarding the congestion and the promise that the minister had made on dealing with the traffic at the interchange at 72nd Avenue and Highway 91?

Hon. K. Falcon: So that long, rambling, totally unrelated — whatever it was; I'm not even sure what it
[ Page 14167 ]
was — diatribe, I guess, on the South Fraser perimeter road has absolutely zero to do with the $100 million in supplementary estimates. But, you know, the member covered so much territory, obviously…. I mean, I'm respectful of the time and the fact that members want to ask questions, but there are a couple of things I just have to say in response to this.

The member apparently is a new-found advocate to preserving Burns Bog, and I'm glad to hear that. But that certainly wasn't the position of the NDP when they were in government, and they had a plan to pave Burns Bog and move the PNE there. That's actually your record, Member. You ran with a party that you knew had a plan to pave Burns Bog and move an amusement park there, for goodness' sake.

You can stand here and talk and criticize the government that preserved over 5,000 acres of Burns Bog in perpetuity. We actually did that. To sit here and listen to that member try and critique us for the fact that we are moving forward on a project which the NDP promised when they were in government and never delivered on, just like all their other failed promises, is just breathtaking. It is breathtaking.

They promised a South Fraser perimeter road and didn't deliver. They promised a Port Mann bridge and didn't deliver. They promised the Pitt River bridge and didn't deliver.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, order, please.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: Multiple broken promises. And now the member stands up and talks about how we are committing this terrible atrocity by moving forward with the South Fraser perimeter road that has been part of the regional plans for over 20 years, that is part of the livable region strategic plan. He talks about how it's going to have traffic impacts.

[1520]

Well, apparently he hasn't looked at all the traffic studies that actually talk about the huge benefits to Delta residents by getting a whole ton of traffic off Nordel Way, off River Road, off 88th avenue, off Ladner Trunk Road, that will no longer be choked up with truck traffic trying to move around that community. That's why it has been part of the regional plans for over 20 years.

You know, at some future time, Member, we might actually get a chance to have a discussion — and I can't wait till we do — where we can talk about that project. But here today in front of us we are actually talking about a $100 million supplementary estimate to go towards the Transportation Investment Corporation, which is building the Port Mann bridge and improving the Highway 1 corridor from Vancouver to 216th Street in Langley.

It is not the South Fraser perimeter road, Member, but I did feel it was important, for the benefit of those watching, to actually put the real record on the record about what the NDP's position has been when they were in government — not the empty rhetoric that we hear when they're in the opposition but what they actually did in government.

What they did was try to pave Burns Bog and move the PNE there. What they did was make promises to build the South Fraser perimeter road, the Port Mann bridge and the Pitt River Bridge and didn't deliver on any one of them. We are delivering on all three of them, just like we said we would.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member, I just want to point out to both sides of the House that there has been considerable latitude allowed in this debate, I think, over the last several days. However, the current questioning is getting way, way off track, and I am going to ask both sides of the House and the member to please confine your questions to the substance of the vote.

G. Gentner: For the record, I sat on the negotiating committee to purchase Burns Bog on behalf of the municipality corporation of Delta. We had a deal for 550 acres, and at the last second Partnerships B.C. walked in and took away the 500 acres and made a deal with a company out of Toronto that now wants access to Burns Bog at the corner of 72nd and Highway 91, and which your government's now negotiating with.

Interjection.

G. Gentner: So there you go — jobs. Pave Burns Bog for jobs. That's what the minister just said. Pave British Columbia's only dome bog in North America.

The Chair: Order, Member.

G. Gentner: You want to pave it for jobs.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order.

G. Gentner: Regarding the $100 million, I just want to get this straight. We're now seeing all these political construction signs popping up like mushrooms all over on River Road, telling us where the South Fraser perimeter road is going, etc. Meanwhile our constituencies are told: "Don't do anything political on your brochures."
[ Page 14168 ]

Where is this money coming from? It's obviously coming from somewhere. Where is it coming from to produce these types of propaganda construction signs? Are they coming from this budget or not?

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, you were just cautioned that we're here to talk about the $100 million on a supplementary estimate.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order.

Minister, take your seat, please.

I ask both the minister and the member. I remind you. Through the Chair, please, and confine your remarks to the vote.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm trying very hard to speak about the vote. I think I've been giving lots of latitude to the members opposite.

Apparently, it's a shock to the member that the largest construction project in the history of the province of British Columbia has some signs. That's a shock.

Anyhow, the $100 million that we're talking about, Member, is to go into the Transportation Investment Corporation. That is equity that is going to be used to begin construction and oversight of a very important project that the people have been waiting for.

Now, the member talks about the timing and suggests that this whole thing was built around a political timetable.

Member, nothing could be farthest from the truth.

[1525]

In fact, the members opposite have done everything they can to frustrate all of these projects. I know the member himself has joined in political protests to try and stop these projects from moving forward.

We have gone through four to five years' worth of work and public consultation, the most extensive public consultation ever undertaken in the history of this province in the Ministry of Transportation, to make sure that we could get this project right. We have gone through a very lengthy and extensive, full and competitive bid process. We are moving forward with the construction now on these very important projects, and I'm proud of that.

G. Gentner: It's interesting how the minister can go off topic. He's now talking about the South Fraser perimeter road when he was saying it was important for us to stick on the one project that's supposed to be before us.

Let me remind the minister that on this side we believe in jobs. We believe in jobs for British Columbians. We believe in projects that will be made for British Columbians. We believe in projects that will be built by British Columbians. We believe in projects to be operated by British Columbians. We believe in jobs to be maintained by British Columbians.

We believe in jobs that will be managed by British Columbians, not by consortiums outside this country, not by the sell-off as seen by the P3s and the partnerships that have been conducted by this government across from us.

I just want to wrap up, and I know that the minister is going to….

Interjections.

G. Gentner: The minister obviously wants more. Well, we'll give him more, then.

You know, in North Delta we are impacted directly and indirectly with the project the minister is talking about, the Port Mann. We're going to see continued toll evaders who will reluctantly…. They'll have no other choice on our side of the river to find their way, rat-run their way through collector roads, arterial roads, residential streets.

Basically, this is how this ministry and this government has been treating my community. It's as though it's a convenient doormat where it just wipes its feet going to and fro, every day the same way….

It's how it's treated Burns Bog. It's how it's treated the farmland. It's how it's treated residents way down in South Delta relative to their concern on power lines, landfills. It goes on and on and on. And for this minister to try and look at traffic abatement…. It's really one to dump the traffic problem in my community. There's no comprehensive plan.

This hundred million dollars has no comprehensive transportation plan that addresses the concerns south of the Fraser. You make it up as you go along. We see what you were going to do with $600 million once, a long time ago on South Fraser perimeter road, four years ago — $800 million next, a billion dollars. Now it's $1.173 billion and climbing while residents in my community don't know if they'll have a home tomorrow on the expropriations.

The discussions being made with my residents whose lives are going to be changed dramatically, who have lived all their lives on the riverfront, who have lived there expecting to have a home, only to find that we are going to see not only a promise to just pave their back yards, but now, after being told they can move their house, they're now told they're going to be wiped out completely.

This is the attitude of this government. It has no respect for the residents of my community or the residents of the province of British Columbia.

Hon. K. Falcon: Try as I might, I had difficulty understanding what the question was there. But I have to admit that I joined in the guffaws of laughter when he talked about how the NDP are for jobs. They have been opposing this project, which creates 8,000 jobs. From
[ Page 14169 ]
day one they've been opposing it. They've been opposing the South Fraser perimeter road which that member spoke about — 7,000 jobs. They've opposed it.

They opposed the Pitt River Bridge, a project that has hundreds and hundreds of workers currently working on that bridge today. Opposed, opposed, opposed. That is the record of the NDP.

We have been building this because it is part of a larger plan. It's too bad that the member never took time to actually read the plan. It's actually called the Gateway plan. We even added the word "plan" in it to make it easy for the member to go and refer to it.

[1530]

We've got a transportation plan — a public transit plan, a $14 billion plan — the member should read, too, because if he read that, he would see that they come together. What you want is an outstanding public transit plan, and you want to be able to move goods and services around the economy. That's about building an economy. That's about building transit for the future to benefit all the residents in the province of British Columbia.

Yet every step of the way, on every single project — the Evergreen line, the Canada line, adding new SkyTrain cars, adding new buses — we've got the same answer from the NDP and that member for Delta North: opposed, opposed, opposed.

Well, let me tell you I can't wait to go and take our record against their record in May and let British Columbians decide who they want to lead this province forward.

Vote 43(S): ministry operations, $20,000,000 — approved.

The Chair: Members, at the call of the Chair, I call a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 3:31 p.m. to 3:39 p.m.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE OLYMPICS

On Vote 24(S): ministry operations, $83,700,000.

Hon. C. Hansen: I can give a breakdown of exactly what these amounts are for. The House will know that we made a commitment at the time that the bid for the Olympic Games was made that we would contribute $20 million to the operating cost of the Paralympic Games. That was originally budgeted for.

If you go back to Budget 2008, it was indicated that those dollars would flow to VANOC in the '09-10 fiscal year. Because the budget is so tight next year, we're looking for opportunities to flow some of these grants in this fiscal year rather than the next fiscal year.

[1540]

The purpose of this supplemental estimate is to authorize the expenditure of the $20 million for the Paralympic Games to be made before the end of this fiscal year.

The remaining element of it, the $63.7 million, is specifically for the security costs — for meeting the balance of the $87.5 million cash obligation that the province has with regard to the cost of security.

Again, that is a number that goes back to a commitment that was made at the time of the bid. There have been dollars that have flowed to the federal government prior to this fiscal year.

This additional amount will allow us to flow the balance of the $87.5 million to the federal government by the end of this fiscal year in accordance with the new security agreement that we signed with the federal government just recently.

Those are the two elements, and I'd be pleased to take the member's questions with regard to those two items.

H. Bains: Thank you to the minister and the staff that will be here to answer some of the questions pertaining to the security budget.

As you know, it's one area that many people have many questions about. Many people have concerns about whether we will be within the original $175 million that was originally included in the $600 million provincial responsibility towards the games.

Let me break it down and ask some questions on the security side, the $63.7 million that the minister said is going towards paying for the balance of $87½ million — the government's original responsibility.

In order to put things in perspective, I think I need to go back to the background and get some answers from the minister. Hopefully, the minister will be able to answer those, going back to December 2006 when the first agreement between the provincial and federal government was signed, which defined responsibilities for each party.

It also defined many other areas that this budget will or will not cover, such as the definition of what is a covered area, what are the urban domains and where this money will actually be applied to. As I said, I'll go back to that.

The first question I will ask the minister is…. After the two levels of government signed that agreement in 2006, part of the agreement was that there was a committee that was supposed to be set up between the two governments, representing each government. Can the minister answer this question: when did the first committee meeting take place?

Hon. C. Hansen: The December 2006 agreement that the member references was, as he indicates, signed
[ Page 14170 ]
between the province and the federal government to set out the province's and the federal government's obligations with regard to the security arrangements for the games security coverage areas, which were subsequently defined as being the venues as well as the movement of the athletes. It was really restricted to just that. As the member knows, that was the $175 million that was notionally budgeted for initially to cover that portion of the security costs.

That security agreement from December of 2006 is no longer valid. The new agreement that was signed by the federal government sets aside the agreement from 2006. I think, essentially, it was felt that that agreement was not going to be workable — that the requirement to comanage the budget for security as was set out in that agreement was simply not something that was going to be operationally efficient. Therefore, the new agreement was put in place.

[1545]

As for the exact meeting dates of the security committee that was set up under that old agreement, I don't have that specific detail here.

H. Bains: As the minister will know, between December 2006 when the first agreement was signed and January 2009 when the second agreement, which replaced the first agreement, was signed, the first agreement was applicable. That's around where I wanted to ask some questions, because we are moving from $87½ million. Can we argue that it is part of our responsibility to take on extra Olympic cost? Although it doesn't say exactly that is the reason, that's where that comes from, and I think the minister explained that in his press conference.

I need to ask some questions on how we went from $87½ million to the numbers that we have today. To do that, we need some information. I think that would be necessary to get some answers. If the minister doesn't know or the information isn't there, will the minister provide us with the information? The question was: when did this committee, for the first time, meet?

Hon. C. Hansen: I will endeavour to get that information for him.

H. Bains: While you're at it, Minister…. Can the minister also give us the dates…? On what other dates did the committee meet, and who was in attendance?

Hon. C. Hansen: I will endeavour to get that.

H. Bains: Is there any time line that the minister may suggest so that we would get that information?

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, I'll certainly try to get that as soon as possible. Whether I can get that for him tomorrow, I would have to double-check.

If I can go back to a comment the member said in one of his questions about better understanding of how we got from the agreement that was there from December of 2006 to the new agreement, I can certainly try to elaborate for the member.

Essentially, as the member will know, there's a provision in the 2006 agreement that requires the RCMP to present an initial operating budget of $175 million. If they were to identify costs that were required over and above the $175 million, then they were to provide a request for an amendment to that operating budget. There's a formal process that was set out in that old agreement for that. I think it became very quickly apparent to everybody that the process that had been set out in that agreement was not going to work.

As I said, I will try to get the dates of the security committee meetings, but I can't say in all honesty that the meetings of that committee were what led to an initial budget being developed. The RCMP developed a budget outside of the framework of that committee, and they presented it to us outside of that arrangement that was set up in that security agreement. The formal process, as set out in that security agreement, was in fact not followed during that period of time.

I will, as I mentioned, be pleased to try to get the dates for the member as soon as I can.

H. Bains: My understanding — the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — is that within a certain period of time of establishing that committee, the RCMP was to come up with the initial budget on security. Can the minister elaborate on what that time line was and whether the RCMP came with the budget within that time frame?

[1550]

Hon. C. Hansen: In that agreement there was a time frame by which the RCMP, through the Integrated Security Unit, was to present a budget to the committee. In fact, the budget was developed, and it was not presented in accordance with what had been set out with that agreement. The budget that the RCMP had developed was presented to us actually much later than what was set out in that agreement and was not presented to the security committee.

H. Bains: Did any level of the government, provincial or federal, take any action or take any initiative? They signed that agreement. The committee was established by both levels of government, and they gave responsibility to the RCMP to do certain things. There are responsibilities for the RCMP.

There's quite a section in that agreement, as the minister knows, and one of the requirements was to come up with a budget and present it to the committee within that prescribed time frame. If they didn't come up with
[ Page 14171 ]
the budget within the prescribed time frame in that agreement, did any level of government take any action, any initiative, or make any inquiries? Why?

I guess the second question would be, while you're at it: did either of the ministers, federal or provincial, receive any reply, and what was the justification from the RCMP?

Hon. C. Hansen: The provincial representatives on the committee certainly raised concerns about this. I personally raised concerns, as did the Solicitor General.

H. Bains: Can the minister tell us when they actually came down with the budget? If they were not within the time frame, what date did they actually come down with the initial budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: The federal government first indicated to the province what they thought our share of the security expenses would be, and that was probably some time around the middle of 2008.

H. Bains: My question was actually about the RCMP coming down with the budget, as it was required for the RCMP to put a budget together and bring it to the committee. The committee then would give briefing to their counterparts in both levels of government. So when did the RCMP actually come down with the initial budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: An amount was provided to us about the middle of 2008. There was some documentation to support that. Officials from the Ministry of Finance engaged with the RCMP and federal government officials with regard to what costs were included in that and tried to determine the rationalization behind some of the costs being included.

H. Bains: The minister is a bit ahead of me. I will get there, but I think my initial question is…. That agreement was signed in 2006. Within 30 days a committee was to be established, and within the prescribed time frame, the RCMP was to come up with a budget. The minister said they didn't come down with their budget within that prescribed time frame in that agreement.

My question is: if the minister is saying that they didn't come down with the initial budget — I'm talking about just the budget, not the reasons and who's responsible for what — when did they actually come down with the initial budget? Is it the middle of 2008, as the minister answered, or have they actually had a budget that was presented to the committee between 2006 and the middle of 2008?

Hon. C. Hansen: There were discussions with regard to cost and budgets at meetings of the security committee. The RCMP, on one occasion, presented a PowerPoint presentation to the committee with regard to costs. But there was never a formal budget presented to the security committee that would have met the definitions of the initial operating budget, as described in the security agreement of 2006.

H. Bains: When did they actually come down with, as the minister put it, the informal budget to the committee? I mean, it's hard to believe that between December 2006….

[1555]

Thirty days is the end of January. Somewhere in January, those 30 days will be over, and the committee is established. Within a certain time frame, the RCMP was to come up with a budget, and the minister has already said that it didn't come down with a budget within the time that was prescribed in that agreement.

Now the minister is saying that there was talk about the budget in the committee. I'd just like to know whether it was informal, formal or any shape. The RCMP came to the committee and said: "This is what the budget is going to look like. This is what we need as the total budget in order to provide the security that we are asked to do."

That's the date I'm asking for. When was the first time they actually came to the committee and said, "This is what we believe is the budget," whether it was a formal request, an informal request or just a talk?

Hon. C. Hansen: That type of specific information, as the member described it, was not presented to the security committee.

H. Bains: I gather that the RCMP never came down with a budget, if that's the answer. There's documentation that was signed by both levels of government, and it didn't say the RCMP "may…." It said the RCMP "shall" come down with the initial budget and present to the committee within that prescribed time frame.

If they didn't do it within that time, and the minister…. They raised some concerns at those meetings. But at some time they came down with a budget. Is the minister saying that the committee saw numbers on the budget for the first time in the middle of 2008?

Hon. C. Hansen: Just to clarify what I said earlier. There was a PowerPoint presentation made to the committee by the RCMP around some of the budget costs. It wasn't the budget. It wasn't anything that added up to a number at the end of the day, but it was a presentation.

I did not receive a copy of that. The members of the committee, to the best of my knowledge, did not have a copy of that PowerPoint to take away. It was simply something that was presented to them verbally and visually in a meeting with no documentation that they were able to take away from that meeting.

To the best of my knowledge, that is the only substantive discussion that the committee had with regard to a
[ Page 14172 ]
budget. At no time, to the best of my knowledge, was there ever a document presented to the security committee that would meet the definition of the initial security budget as set out in the 2006 agreement.

H. Bains: What was the date of that meeting when that PowerPoint presentation was made? What was the date of that meeting where the RCMP made that PowerPoint presentation, as the minister said, for the first time?

Hon. C. Hansen: To the best of my recollection, it would have been about late spring of 2007.

H. Bains: Can the minister tell the House how often this committee met, after it was established within 30 days of 2006 — the joint committee of the federal and provincial?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I said at the outset, I will undertake to get the member the specific dates that the security committee met. I don't have them.

H. Bains: How often did the minister receive briefings from the provincial representative who was the member — or were the members — of that committee?

Hon. C. Hansen: I met with the president of the Olympic Games Secretariat, who was a member of that security committee. I met with her on a regular basis about matters pertaining to the Olympic file generally and the other work that was being done by the Olympic secretariat. From time to time she would report on what happened — or, in most cases, did not happen — at security committee meetings.

H. Bains: Did the Olympic secretariat or the other members of the provincial representatives who sat on this committee ever advise the minister about whether they were formal budget numbers or informal budget numbers?

[1600]

Was the minister ever advised by provincial representatives at any point between 2006 and 2007 — the date that the minister said, the first time the RCMP provided the PowerPoint to the committee…? Did the minister receive any information from the provincial representatives between those two dates as to any numbers being talked about that would be or possibly could be the security budget numbers?

Hon. C. Hansen: No.

H. Bains: Did any of the representatives ever advise the minister that they had heard at the committee meetings that the budget could go higher than $175 million?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think there was certainly lots of discussion around what an overall security cost might be. There was no question throughout that process that that would be in excess of the $175 million, because the overall security budget for the entire operations that the RCMP would have responsibility for included elements of security that were well beyond the games security coverage areas set out in the 2006 agreement.

The member may recall, in the many discussions that he and I have had during the regular estimates process over these last number of years, that what I had said consistently during that period of time was that nobody had shown me evidence that the $175 million budget was not adequate to cover what it needed to cover.

When there were suggestions that perhaps elements of it might be higher, our response as a province was to push back and basically say: "We want to see the numbers. Until such time as we can see evidence that it would have to be considerably higher, we're simply not prepared to oblige the province for a number greater than we had budgeted for."

If the member goes back and checks over Hansard for that number of years, I think my message was pretty consistent during that period of time.

H. Bains: I think that so far what I've heard is that between 2006, when that agreement was signed…. A committee was established within 30 days of signing that agreement. Then I believe the minister said that in September of 2007, the RCMP had the PowerPoint presentation for the committee, talking about what the security numbers could look like. Between those dates, no one ever suggested to the minister that the security costs would be higher than $175 million to provide security for the games.

I'm talking about $175 million. The reason the $175 million was put together was to provide security for the games. It would be the same, I would imagine, as what we are looking at today — the security coverage for the games.

The agreement was that the province will pay 50 percent and the federal government will pay 50 percent. Now, although the two numbers are different…. The responsibility for each level of government is different, but the initial agreement talked about 50-50 sharing of the security cost. It didn't talk about many of the other areas that we are talking about now.

I'm just trying to ask the minister how it is possible that between 2006 and 2007, no one ever suggested to the minister that the security costs would be within $175 million.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member will know that there was lots of speculation as to what the total security costs might be, but as I said and indicated in my previous answer, what I had said consistently was that nobody had shown me the evidence that it needed to be greater.

[1605]
[ Page 14173 ]

Basically, in the security agreement that we had in the 2006 agreement…. It was very specific in terms of what the $175 million budget was to cover. First of all, it had to be incremental cost. So it had to be over and above the base budgets of whatever organizations…. They're all set out in that agreement, as the member knows. It has to be over and above the base budgets that those agencies already had access to.

The second thing was that it was specific to the games security area, and that is the venues and the athletes. If the member may recall — but he can certainly go back and refresh his memory in Hansard — going back to, I think, the date that he and I first had discussions in estimates in the Douglas Fir Room about the various Olympic-related costs, I was very specific right from day one to say that what the province was not responsible for was border security, any protection for VIPs or any additional cost that would be pertaining to any kind of terrorism threat.

For example, if you had an increased security cost at one of the Olympic venues that was being driven by a perceived or real terrorism threat, that would not be something that would be cost-shared with the province. That would be something that would have been 100 percent the responsibility of the federal government. That was true then, and that is true now.

I think that sort of underscores why it became important for us to basically negotiate a new arrangement with the federal government whereby we leave the total responsibility for security to the RCMP and the federal government. We pulled out of that comanaged budget as was provided for in the 2006 agreement and put in place a new security agreement whereby the federal government takes sole responsibility for that planning, for the budgeting and for the implementation.

H. Bains: The minister continued to insist during the previous estimates…. He took the same position as he's taking today, and I understand that. But can the minister tell us if all of that — according to the minister, what was not to include in the $175 million, what that would cover…? Was that part of the initial agreement between the federal government, the provincial government and other parties that signed that initial multiparty agreement?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm sorry. Could I get the member to restate the question? I wasn't exactly clear.

H. Bains: The minister has said in answer to my earlier question that the minister has been very consistent about what this $175 million would cover, what the provincial responsibility would be — part of that $175 million. The minister went on to say what it does not include: the border security, the terrorist threat and outside of the coverage area. Was all of that part of the initial agreement that the parties signed when they put together the $175 million budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: The first agreement that was in place with regard to security was the 2006 agreement. I think that agreement is quite explicit that it is for just the incremental cost and that it was for just the games security coverage area, which is the venues and the athletes.

H. Bains: Is the minister then saying that the multiparty agreement that was signed and the budget that was put together during the bid application…? Can the minister tell us whether this position was explicit in that agreement — who was responsible for what part of security and whether it was always 50-50 for the overall security?

[1610]

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, I was trying to find the specific reference to security in the multiparty agreement. We'll endeavour to do that.

Certainly, going back to the time of the bid and how that 175 number was developed, that was before my time. I have no knowledge of how that was developed. What I do know is that the security agreement that was signed in 2006 was to reflect the obligation that the province and the federal government felt was in place as a result of the bid and as a result of the multiparty agreement.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could provide us with that answer while we're going through this. Maybe the staff can check through the initial agreement and let us know whether these inclusions and exclusions were part of the initial agreement — unless the minister has that answer right now.

[1615]

Hon. C. Hansen: I apologize for the time. At one point, I knew the multiparty agreement, basically, page by page. I haven't had reason to go and find it.

In my scanning through it right now, I can't find any reference actually in the multiparty agreement to security. But as I mentioned earlier, the security agreement that was signed between the province and the federal government in 2006 was, at that time, written and designed to reflect the responsibilities that the two levels of government had undertaken previously.

That was the first security agreement, 2006. It's not that there was an agreement that specifically addressed security prior to that time.

H. Bains: So the minister is saying that prior to the signing of that agreement in December 2006, there was no understanding that existed between the federal government and the provincial government as far as the responsibility for each is concerned. There was no understanding of what was included in that
[ Page 14174 ]
$175 million and what was excluded in the $175 million, what responsibility the province carries as their 50 percent of the cost and what responsibility the federal government covers as part of their 50 percent of the share of the $175 million.

Hon. C. Hansen: We did find the specific reference. The reference in the multiparty agreement is under the title of "Peaceful Holding of the Games." The "Royal Canadian Mounted Police…." This is under the section that says: "Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing, Canada agrees to…." Then there are several other sections.

"Peaceful Holding of the Games: the Royal Canadian Mounted Police providing: (1) the lead in forming an integrated police planning group; (2) appropriate federal security measures, which in the opinion of Canada are necessary; and (3) to cooperate" with the Olympic Games organizing committee, the city, the Canadian Olympic Committee and the Canadian Paralympic Committee, the International Olympic Committee and other games parties on "non-federal security matters."

That's the reference in the multiparty agreement. But as I indicated, the security agreement signed in 2006 was to reflect the understanding that was already in place. So yes, there was an understanding that the province would be responsible for 50 percent of the security related to the venues and the athletes, and that the initial budget for that portion of it was established at $175 million.

H. Bains: Listening to this reading by the minister of the multiparty agreement, it still does not clearly define what is the responsibility of the federal government, what is the responsibility of the provincial government and what each government's 50 percent of $175 million will cover. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is correct. The multiparty agreement does not set out that degree of specificity.

H. Bains: In December 2006, according to the minister, that understanding was clarified — who is responsible for what, as far as what portion of their 50 percent of $175 million would cover and what it would not cover.

Hon. C. Hansen: That initial security agreement signed in December of 2006 was explicit that it was to cover only the incremental cost and only the security for the games security coverage area, which was defined as the venues and the athletes.

H. Bains: Will the minister agree with me that even in that agreement, what the coverage area is and what the incremental cost is were not clarified either?

Hon. C. Hansen: The definition of the games security coverage area was later determined by the security committee. It was clarified to define that specifically as the venues and the athletes.

[1620]

H. Bains: Even in December 2006 we did not know what our responsibility as the province, what the provincial responsibility would be as far as what the coverage area would be and what this $87½ million was covering. So 2006 December, we still didn't know.

Hon. C. Hansen: No, that's not correct. We did know that we had responsibility for the incremental security cost for the venues and the athletes.

H. Bains: Perhaps I could draw the minister's attention to that same agreement, page 4. It's subsection 1.01(h). It's under the definitions, I believe. Let me double-check. Yes, it's under the definition interpretation section. It says the "'Games security coverage area or areas' means, for the purpose of this agreement, the policing and security coverage area or areas identified by VANOC or the RCMP and approved by the RCMP and security committee acting reasonably within the context of this agreement."

So even in December 2006 we still didn't know what the coverage area was to be. It was still to be identified either by VANOC or by the RCMP and then approved by the RCMP and security committee. Is that not correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: I will reiterate what I said earlier. We knew what we were responsible for, and that was 50 percent of the incremental cost of security for the venues and the athletes. That is, in fact, how the games security coverage area was defined following that process that the member outlined.

H. Bains: The next subsection talked about incremental costs. It says: "'Incremental costs' means those costs arising during the term of this agreement through the planning and preparation for, and the provision of, policing and security operations and services for the protection of the games security coverage areas…."

I just want to remind the minister that we still have not yet identified the coverage area as of the signing of this agreement

It goes on to say: "…that are incremental to the costs of providing the base resources, as itemized in the initial operating budget or any amended operating budget cost categories."

So even reading the incremental cost, we still didn't know what the coverage area was going to be and what our responsibility would carry us with this $87½ million.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as I indicated, that we were quite clear what our responsibilities were. We lived up to those responsibilities to provide 50 percent of the
[ Page 14175 ]
incremental cost of the security for the venues and the athletes.

H. Bains: Before I go further, maybe the minister can advise the House…. As this agreement calls for, VANOC or the RCMP was to define what the coverage area was. So can the minister advise the House who actually identified what the coverage area was?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't know the details of all the conversations that went back and forth between the various parties that the member has outlined. What I do know is that the security committee came to a resolution and agreement on what constituted the games security coverage area, and that was for the venues and the athletes.

The other thing that I would remind the member of is that it never did lead to an initial operating budget, never mind an amending operating budget.

[1625]

It also is quite moot today because the agreement that the member is delving into is no longer valid. That agreement has been replaced with the new security agreement that gives the federal government and the RCMP total responsibility for all operational planning, implementation and financing of the security for the games, regardless as to whether it's for the venues or for the airport or for borders or for VIPs or anything else.

H. Bains: As I said before, despite the fact that this agreement is replaced by a new agreement, we can't escape the fact that this agreement was in existence between December 2006 and January 2009 when this new agreement was signed. I think we were operating under this agreement around the time that I'm asking questions for.

Therefore, the question was…. According to this agreement, it was either VANOC or the RCMP who was to identify what the coverage area is. So was it VANOC who would identify this, or was it the RCMP? It says VANOC or the RCMP, so which one?

Hon. C. Hansen: I do not have any knowledge of that or what those discussions were. What I do know is that the security committee addressed it, and there was a decision with regard to specifically what that coverage area was.

H. Bains: The minister says he doesn't know whether it was VANOC who identified the coverage area or defined the coverage area or the RCMP. Can the minister advise the House when they actually came up with a definition of the coverage area?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have that information. That would have been provided to me as a verbal report from the president of the Olympic Games Secretariat during one of our regular meetings.

H. Bains: But all through this time, as the minister has identified during our earlier estimates, it was very consistent what the minister's position was: what is supposed to be the responsibility of the provincial government and what isn't. But the minister doesn't know when and who came up with the coverage area definition. I mean, you are governed by this agreement.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair.

H. Bains: Through the Chair, of course, Madam Chair. The minister was governed by this agreement, and the minister was responsible to comply with this agreement because this agreement was not just a unilateral agreement. It was an agreement signed between the two parties. There are some sets of rules that we agreed to follow as a provincial government.

Part of that is that these two organizations, whether it was VANOC or the RCMP, were to identify the coverage area. The minister says he doesn't know who came up with the definition, but the minister had his own definition. It seems to me that's what the minister is saying. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll correct the member. I am not the minister responsible for that agreement, and I was not the minister responsible for that agreement when it was in place. It was the Solicitor General.

What would have been interesting to me is if the committee had come up with a definition of games security coverage area that was different from the definition we were working with. The definition we were working with was that it was the incremental cost of security for the venues and the athletes. That is, in fact, what was confirmed by the committee. Therefore, that is what was operationalized. But the minister responsible for that agreement was the Solicitor General.

H. Bains: I think it's incumbent upon the minister and the government to provide some answers to this question. The minister in the House was very consistent with what the minister felt was the definition of the coverage area. Perhaps if he could go back to 2006 estimates, 2007 estimates and then 2008 estimates, those are the positions that the minister took.

[1630]

So the minister was working with a definition with that understanding. But the minister doesn't know, or hasn't been able to provide us information on, who provided the minister with that definition — when this agreement talks about how someone else was to come with a definition, and we were to live with it.
[ Page 14176 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member indicated, the definition we were working with is one for which I have been totally consistent throughout all of these years of discussion that we've had, whether it was in this chamber or in the Douglas Fir Room during an estimates process.

That is a definition that actually was confirmed by the security committee at some point during that process, but it was the definition that was in place. It was the understanding that was in place well before the security agreement was signed, and it was the definition that stood, frankly, right through until January of this year when that security agreement was dissolved and was replaced with the new security agreement.

H. Bains: In fact, the understanding that the minister was working under, according to this agreement…. What changed with this new agreement? This agreement calls for any additional cost…. First of all, the initial cost of security will be a 50-50 responsibility, out of the $175 million. Then it goes on to say that if there's going to be any difference between the initial budget and the amended budget, it again would be the responsibility, based on 50 percent provincial government, 50 percent federal government….

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

So the minister's definition got changed, or the understanding the minister had under this agreement got changed, because the new security budget that has been put together, at least the total numbers, isn't 50 percent provincial and 50 percent federal. Isn't that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm tempted to just suggest to the member that he go back and read the Hansard of what we just discussed earlier. We're going around in circles. I'll remind the member that at the outset of this discussion some time ago I said that at no time was the provincial government responsible for 50 percent of all of the security cost. We were responsible for 50 percent of the incremental cost over and above base budgets for the security for the venues and the athletes.

I would suggest that if the member wants to revisit the same questions that he asked half an hour ago, he's welcome to it, but he should be paying attention to the answers so that we don't have this kind of redundancy and duplication.

H. Bains: I'm going here by what was signed by the two levels of government, not what the minister said or the minister's understanding, because that got changed. This agreement talked about each party hereby committing to contribute 50 percent to the initial operating budget. That's what this agreement says.

Then it goes on to say: "Each party hereby commits to contribute 50 percent of the difference between the amended budget and the operating budget, initial or amended, that was in effect on the day immediately preceding that amended operating budget."

So the provincial government, which the minister is a minister of, signed this agreement and committed that we would be responsible for 50 percent of the initial budget and 50 percent of the difference between the initial and the amended budget. But it does not talk about what is included and what is not included. That's the statement the minister made, but it's not in this agreement.

I am trying to ask if the minister could explain and maybe read it to me in this agreement. I tried to ask the minister, and he couldn't find it in the multiparty agreement. I asked the minister if he could find it in the agreement that was signed on behalf of the government in December 2006, if there's anywhere that shows what the minister has been saying in the House — what is excluded, what is not covered by the $87.5 million responsibility of government. Perhaps the minister could walk me through this agreement and show me where it says it.

[1635]

Hon. C. Hansen: In the agreement of 2006 — the member is correct — it says that the province is responsible for 50 percent of the initial operating budget. If he were to read the rest of the agreement, he would know that the RCMP was obligated to submit an initial operating agreement that was not to exceed $175 million.

Therefore, until such time as there is an initial operating agreement that has been filed and accepted by the security committee and a subsequent request from the RCMP for an amendment to that initial operating agreement for additional amounts over and above the $175 million, then there is nothing in that agreement that obligates the province to anything over and above the initial $87.5 million.

That is why, hon. Member, I have consistently said that the province's obligation was $87.5 million, and until such time as somebody showed evidence as to why it should be greater, the province was not prepared to accept that it had an obligation over and above $87.5 million. So it's all set out in that agreement, hon. Member.

H. Bains: So we're clear on that. I wasn't asking that question when the minister started to, I guess, give us a lecture on what we should be doing — going back to the estimates or listening to the answer the minister was giving.

But my question was the exclusions. If we want to be consistent, the minister said time and again, in the House and outside, what is not the responsibility of the provincial government that the $87.5 million will cover. But those exclusions were not clarified or identified in this agreement.
[ Page 14177 ]

That's the question I was asking. If the minister can show me where in this agreement those exclusions were listed, I'm here to listen to the minister. Perhaps the minister could show me where those exclusions are that the minister has been saying consistently are not the responsibility of the minister or the provincial government. Where are the lists in this agreement?

Hon. C. Hansen: I will read again from the multiparty agreement with regard to the peaceful holding of the games: "The Royal Canadian Mounted Police providing (1) the lead in forming an integrated police planning group; (2) appropriate federal security measures which, in the opinion of Canada, are necessary; and (3) to cooperate with the OCOG, the city, the COC, the CPC, the IOC and other games parties on non-federal security matters."

There was never a question that the province would be responsible. I think, as the member indicated, I repeatedly set out what we were not responsible for, and quite frankly that was never challenged by the federal government or by the RCMP.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could tell us…. I believe the minister said September 2007 was when the RCMP initially gave a PowerPoint presentation to the committee. Perhaps the minister can explain. If it's not September 2007…. I thought that was what the minister said.

Perhaps the minister could correct me now. When was the first time the RCMP gave a PowerPoint presentation to the committee that talked about the security numbers on budget?

[1640]

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, to the best of my knowledge, at no time was the security committee presented with a budget. There were discussions around costs that were presented to the security committee. There was a PowerPoint presentation, but as I indicated earlier, to the best of my knowledge, it was at some time in 2007. I don't have the exact date.

H. Bains: Was the minister advised what the committee had heard, by the RCMP? So it's not September. It's sometime in 2007. Can the minister advise the House? Was it early 2007 or the latter part of 2007 or somewhere in the middle?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as I indicated earlier, it's the Solicitor General that has responsibility for that agreement as it existed prior to January of this year. The reports that I had were not formal. They were from the president of the Olympic Games secretariat, who sat on the security committee. At no time did they present to me any budget numbers with regard to security.

H. Bains: Perhaps that's the information I'm looking for, if that's the information the minister has. Sometime in 2007 the committee was advised by the RCMP on the cost, if that's the word the minister is using, of the security. Subsequent to that, the president of the provincial 2010 Olympic secretariat met with the minister or talked to the minister and perhaps gave him some informal numbers — the cost.

What was the discussion? The RCMP came and gave their presentation to the committee. The Olympic secretariat was, as a member, to be present at that meeting — if not, would have access to that information. Did the secretariat ever advise the minister what she has heard — whether those numbers are within $175 million — or were they looking at numbers that may be beyond $175 million?

Hon. C. Hansen: There were lots of numbers that floated around, and it was not a budget that was presented. It was an approach to costs. The province's response to…. Some of the costs that were being suggested would be part of a budget, if it were to ever materialize, were things that we felt should not be charged to the province's 50 percent share.

I will give the member an example. If at any time the RCMP had suggested that significant equipment purchases would be made out of that $175 million, that's the type of thing that provincial officials would have pushed back on and said: "We actually don't believe that the Olympic security budget should be used to re-equip the RCMP for the next seven, eight, ten, 12 years." If there is new equipment that's required, then perhaps there is an amortized cost for the portion of the 17 days, for example, that that equipment might be used for Olympic security.

So what I'm saying in terms of…. What was presented to the committee was an approach to how costs might be managed. I'm sure there were, at the time, discussions about the kinds of things that we don't think should have been included. So there was some push-back at that time.

But it did not result in a budget, and to answer the member's specific question — at any time was I told of a number for our share of responsibility being greater than 50 percent of $175 million? — the answer to that question is no. That does not come through the security committee. As I indicated earlier, we were indicated in the middle of 2008 what the RCMP thought our share was, and that was the earliest indication we had with any kind of substance behind it that our responsibilities might, at the end of the day, exceed $87.5 million.

H. Bains: I accept the minister's explanation. That the minister, even if the numbers were given…. But the provincial officials were pushed back on the areas that the province didn't feel were the responsibility of the province and should be covered under $175 million.

[1645]
[ Page 14178 ]

That aside, the dispute is there. But I'm asking, considering that the dispute was still there, whether we have the responsibility for or we had the responsibility for part of the cost that the RCMP was identifying. Having said that, they must have come up with some numbers, must have come up with some costs, including all of those items that they may have identified that needed to be in place in order to provide security.

I accept the minister's explanation that some of them, you would argue, were not your responsibility, but they must have come up with a number, although that dispute is still there between the province and the federal government.

Who was responsible for what? What were those numbers? Were those numbers thrown around sometime in 2007? Was the minister made aware that the numbers were less than $175 million or they were within $175 million or they were going over $175 million, having said the dispute on those items still existed?

Hon. C. Hansen: That level of detail was never presented to me. To the best of my knowledge, it was not presented to the committee. When there were projected costs, the first thing that provincial officials would look at is whether or not that should be…. First of all, the question would be: is it incremental to base budgets? The other question would be: is it specifically pertaining to the games security coverage area? And at no time were numbers presented in the context of those specific obligations that the province had responsibility for.

H. Bains: Was there any total number talked about, suggested by the RCMP to the committee and, subsequently, from there on to the minister, leaving aside the disputes of what should be provincial responsibility or not?

Hon. C. Hansen: No total, aggregate number was presented to the committee, to the best of my knowledge.

H. Bains: I will ask some other questions. Were there any other provincial employees or departments involved in the process of developing the security budget, other than the secretariat office, the Solicitor General's office — any other provincial government employees or departments involved in this?

Hon. C. Hansen: If the member is referring to the initial operating budget that was provided for in the security agreement, the answer is no.

H. Bains: Perhaps I could ask the minister: when did the RCMP actually first provide the initial budget, and then, was there an updated budget to that committee?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think I already answered that question, and what I said at the time was that there was nothing that would constitute an initial operating budget ever presented to the committee.

H. Bains: The minister is saying that although the RCMP had the responsibility to develop a budget, they never went to that committee with an initial budget, with concrete numbers, and they never went to the committee for any subsequent and updated budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is what I said an hour ago, and my answer has not changed in the last hour.

H. Bains: When did the minister, for the first time, see the security budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: I have never seen a security budget.

The Chair: Member, and a reminder, please — through the Chair.

H. Bains: Through the Chair. But then the minister went on to negotiate an agreement with the federal government, incurring $165 million in additional costs, although it comes from the infrastructure capital budget so that the federal government can take on a larger responsibility.

The minister is saying that they agreed with that without seeing the overall security budget?

[1650]

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, I'll go back and revisit some of our earlier discussion.

What I indicated to the member, and I will reiterate it again, is that there was never an initial operating budget — anything that would constitute an initial operating budget — presented to the security committee.

The federal government and the RCMP did present to the provincial government in the middle of last year a number that they thought would be our share of the security costs which we were responsible for. We initially engaged in some negotiations with the federal government, and the RCMP specifically, over how that number was arrived at and what things were included in it, for us to be able to determine if it should in fact be part of our responsibility.

None of those discussions happened through the security committee, and those discussions took place directly. But the RCMP, I can tell you, were very reticent to share details. We realized — and I think the member probably appreciates, just from the discussion that we've had today — that it was a very difficult arrangement to determine exactly who had what responsibility for what costs.

In the process of trying to engage with the federal government over why they arrived at the number they arrived at and the elements of it, we realized that that
[ Page 14179 ]
was going to be a very long and protracted process. We also came to realize that the security agreement that was in place, the December 2006 security agreement, was somewhat dysfunctional in that it was not going to lead to an efficient way of managing a security budget for the games.

The culmination of those things led to the province making a suggestion to the federal government that if we could structure the financing in the way that we did structure it, we would be prepared to accept the number they had put forward. That meant we were basically taking ourselves out of that detailed, line-by-line questioning of what should or shouldn't be in.

We basically said: "Here's a negotiated arrangement by which both parties, the federal government and the province, would void that security agreement from December of 2006 and put in place a new security agreement that would result in the province transferring the balance of its $87.5 million to the federal government by the end of March of this fiscal year. The federal government would then assume all subsequent costs."

Now, in a separate negotiation, which the member has alluded to, we also negotiated a separate arrangement with the federal government that acknowledged that we would assume on infrastructure funding $165 million additional, over and above what the province might otherwise have been responsible for.

As I mentioned at the press conference when we announced that, I see that additional $165 million of costs, albeit on the infrastructure side, as still part of us living up to our obligations for the staging of the games. As I indicated at that time, that envelope that we talked about before of $600 million…. We can now, in effect, look at it as a $765 million cost for us living up to the obligations that we made at the time the bid was awarded.

H. Bains: I have some other questions in line with what we've been talking about.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, Member.

H. Bains: How can the minister agree to include $165 million as an Olympic cost when it has nothing to do with the Olympics? In fact, there are a number of entities that are directly related to the Olympics, and the minister says that they are not an Olympic cost, such as the Olympic secretariat office. So $165 million comes out of our infrastructure capital budget and had nothing to do with the Olympics, and that minister is prepared to accept it as an Olympic cost — but the Olympic secretariat, he isn't.

I might remind the minister also that their federal counterparts include their federal Olympic secretariat office as an Olympic cost. So how does the minister explain the discrepancies of including $165 million that had nothing to do with Olympics, yet the Olympic secretariat, whose sole job is to deal with the Olympics, is not an Olympic cost?

[1655]

Hon. C. Hansen: I will be respectful of the rules of the House and limit my remarks to the scope of the discussion that we are having today, which is about Olympic security costs.

We recognize that in order for us to negotiate with the federal government, our security cost being capped at $87.5 million, the federal government was assuming more than it might otherwise have assumed as its share of Olympic costs. So in a separate agreement, we as a provincial government negotiating our infrastructure arrangements agreed to assume an additional cost of $165 million on that file.

While it is not in any way…. Our cash obligation to security out of our operating budget still is and always has been $87.5 million. When I say that we acknowledge that the cost to the province of living up to our Olympic obligations is greater than simply the $165 million, it is in reflecting the fact that the province has assumed an additional $165 million of responsibility on the infrastructure side.

H. Bains: A very interesting answer.

Let me ask the minister now: who actually developed the Olympic security budget? The minister has said that the RCMP never brought a budget before the committee, as they were required to do under that agreement and that the only thing they've seen from the RCMP was the PowerPoint presentation. So perhaps the minister could tell us: who put together the security budget, and when was the first time the minister saw that budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: The overall security budget was put together by the RCMP, and I have never seen a copy of that budget.

H. Bains: Just to make sure that we clarify that. The RCMP put together the security budget. Can the minister tell us when, actually, they put that together and when it was presented to this minister or this government or the federal government?

Hon. C. Hansen: The security budget was put together by the RCMP. Presumably, it was presented to the federal government. I don't know what that process was or how it was. We were not involved. The extent of our involvement was our discussions with the federal government over what should be the costs for which the provincial government should take responsibility.

The first time that I saw any detail of the federal budget was on February 19, when the federal Minister of Public Safety made that information public and put it up on the website.
[ Page 14180 ]

H. Bains: It is quite interesting that we have here a provincial government working with the federal government and with the RCMP, and the minister has to rely on their website to find out what the initial security budget is.

Weren't there any meetings between the provincial government and the federal government, since the initial agreement was signed in 2006? Didn't any discussion take place between the two levels of government on where the budget was going? Obviously, the minister said earlier, there were some disputes. Who was responsible for what areas that needed to be covered with that $175 million?

Obviously, there must have been some other discussions between the provincial and federal governments identifying (1) areas that are the responsibility of both governments, and (2) what the total cost is going to be. The minister is saying that he never saw it until February of 2009, when they put that budget on their website. What took place prior to that, in prior months and prior years? No discussion about the budget took place?

[1700]

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member is under sort of a fundamental misconception. The overall security responsibility is today and always has been the responsibility of the federal government. That is not something that we comanaged. It's not something where they would come to us and lay out their budget for National Defence or CSIS or whoever else they were using. That was solely their responsibility, and we had no responsibility for any element of that. So there is no reason for the federal government to share that with us, or involve us with it, for that matter.

What our involvement was, was to assume responsibility for 50 percent of the cost of incremental security cost for the venues and the athletes. At the end of the day, what we did was negotiate an arrangement with the federal government whereby we transferred dollars to them and they took over total responsibility for everything else. At no time was there any obligation for the federal government to share anything with us with regard to the elements of security that were beyond the scope of what the provincial government had 50 percent responsibility for.

I do have for the member…. I undertook to get the dates of the security committee meetings, and I will be pleased to read them into the record. The security committee met on February 15, 2007; March 5; May 4; July 5; August 30; September 17; November 5; November 6; February 1, 2008; February 18; March 6; May 1; June 6; July 17.

H. Bains: The more the minister tries to explain, the more confusing it gets. The minister is saying that the security responsibility was the complete responsibility of the federal government. But this provincial government signed an agreement. It talked about the 2010 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games security cost-sharing memorandum of agreement. It was signed in December 2006, and it was the responsibility of the provincial government, of the federal government and of the RCMP.

For the minister to say that we had nothing to do with the security budget or the security of these games…. Perhaps the minister can explain: how do we have these agreements in existence, signed by the provincial government and by the federal government, and then say that we have no responsibility for the security of these games?

Hon. C. Hansen: I will say it again. The federal government, through the RCMP, has responsibility for the security for the games. They always have, and they still do.

I have said repeatedly to the member — and I will repeat it once again, but maybe slower this time — that the provincial government had responsibility for 50 percent of the cost of incremental security for the venues and the athletes, and we have lived up to that obligation. In the agreement that we signed with the federal government in January, all of our obligations have now been met.

H. Bains: As per that agreement, through the security committee that was established by both levels of government, which means representing the provincial government and federal government, it was their job to approve the games security coverage area for the purpose of cost-sharing under this agreement. It was their responsibility to receive the budget from the RCMP and approve it.

The minister is now saying: "You know, we had no responsibility." You had representatives sitting on that committee, so you are directly involved in the security and the budget for the security. That's exactly what this agreement says.

My question. How could you stand here and say: "We have no responsibility for the security of the games. It was always the federal government. That was their responsibility"? We were involved in designing that budget by appointing those people on the committee, by agreeing to have the committee, by signing this agreement.

I just don't get it. How does the minister say that we had nothing to do with, or words to that effect, the security of the games, that it was always the responsibility of the RCMP through the federal government?

[1705]

Hon. C. Hansen: I have never said that we had no responsibilities with regard to security. What I said was that the RCMP and the federal government have and still do have responsibility for security. They do the planning. They develop the budget. The provincial government's
[ Page 14181 ]
role, as was set out in that security agreement, was to fund 50 percent of the incremental cost of the security for the venues and the athletes. That agreement has now been superseded by the agreement that was signed in January, which sets out the new arrangement.

B. Ralston: I want to ask the minister some further questions about the $165 million. The minister has described this as a separate agreement with the federal government, and it doesn't come out of the operating budget. Yet it is, I think, in fact directed to meet the balance of the province's obligations for the security budget that the minister has described for the athletes and the venues.

Is that a correct summary of what the minister just said? I just want to be clear before I proceed.

Hon. C. Hansen: I was very explicit when I discussed this earlier this afternoon, and that is that we struck an agreement with the federal government with regard to our obligations with regard to Olympic security. That is for the province to transfer the balance of $87.5 million to the federal government, and the federal government will assume all additional responsibility for the cost of security for the games.

The province recognizes that in that agreement, the federal government is assuming more than its share would otherwise have been. Therefore, in a separate agreement with regard to infrastructure, which is not part of the supplemental estimate that is before us today, the provincial government assumed $165 million of costs on infrastructure that it would otherwise not have had to assume responsibility for.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise what accounting advice he got from the comptroller general, or from the Auditor General if he sought it, that makes that decision to fund $165 million out of the infrastructure fund — the capital budget, not out of the operating budget — lawful?

Hon. C. Hansen: The comptroller general was consulted.

B. Ralston: Is the minister prepared to table the opinion of the comptroller general?

Hon. C. Hansen: To the best of my knowledge, it was not a written opinion.

B. Ralston: Well, I find that a bit surprising given that the sum at stake is $165 million. Generally, in my experience, comptrollers general and accountants are usually the kind of people that want to reduce those sorts of important opinions to writing.

So the minister is telling us here, just so we're clear, that on that decision and whether or not it conformed with GAAP accounting rules and all the other accounting rules that are necessary, it was simply a verbal opinion? And if that is so, who was that verbal opinion given to?

Hon. C. Hansen: To the best of my knowledge, it would have been to the deputy minister.

B. Ralston: Well, the deputy minister is not here with the minister, but could the minister then summarize for the House the contents of that verbal advice? I assume that there are some accounting principles that come into play in such a decision, and I'd appreciate being advised of what those principles were and what the advice was.

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that this may be splitting hairs, but I do want to actually point out that the supplemental estimate that is before us today pertains only to the $87.5 million or the balance of it. There would be other times in the chamber to discuss the road, I think, that the member is going down.

[1710]

But I can assure the member that the senior staff in the Ministry of Finance engaged with the comptroller general with regard to this issue and were satisfied that this was an appropriate accounting treatment. My job as minister was to make sure that that advice had been sought and received, and I think that the senior officials in the ministry have certainly engaged with the details around that matter.

B. Ralston: Well, I appreciate the minister's comments, in the sense that I, too, want to respect the rules of the House and stick with the supplementary estimates. But it does seem to me that this $165 million is integrally tied to the $87.5 million for…. If it wasn't taken out of the operating budget and put into a capital budget for the following year, it might very well have formed part of this year's supplemental estimates or, alternately, would have found its way into the operating budget for next year.

Can the minister advise what the nature was of the questions posed to the comptroller general about the alternatives for the accounting treatment of this $165 million and its relationship to the $87.5 million?

Hon. C. Hansen: Hon. Chair, these are seen as two separate sets of negotiations. These are two separate agreements, and there is no direct relationship.

B. Ralston: Is the minister saying that…? I appreciate that they are notionally separate, because that suits the decision that was ultimately made. But is the minister seriously suggesting that there wasn't one discussion involving how to apportion and divide up the remaining liability, if I can call it that, from the province's perspective for the security costs of the games and how to treat
[ Page 14182 ]
that? Was it not simply one negotiation that resulted in the treatment that we now see and the deal that was negotiated?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated to the member's colleague earlier this afternoon, we made a proposal to the federal government that would have involved us capping our responsibility for Olympic security budget cost at $87.5 million, and we also made a proposal to the federal government that we would assume $165 million…. Well, in fact, the numbers weren't specific at that time, but we would assume a greater cost with regard to our obligations with federal-provincial funded infrastructure.

B. Ralston: Well, I appreciate what the minister has said, but it really does seem to defy logic and common sense to suggest that there were two separate negotiations between separate parties on separate days and separate locations, if that's what the minister is suggesting.

Wasn't it one package deal, which was negotiated — I presume at the political level between, perhaps, the Premier and the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance federally and the Minister of Finance provincially — and said: "Look, we've got this problem. We don't want to put it in our operating budget. We don't want to blow the budget. We're really jammed this year, and we don't want to put it in next year. Why don't we dump it off into capital, and let's call it two separate negotiations, and we'll be off the hook?"

Isn't that really what happened, if the minister wants to be more candid?

Hon. C. Hansen: I thought I was being pretty candid here. As I indicated, I made the suggestion of how this issue could be resolved. I made the suggestion to the federal Finance Minister. He indicated that he thought it could be workable, and after that, officials from the provincial Ministry of Finance worked with the federal Department of Finance officials, and they negotiated these two separate arrangements.

B. Ralston: In fairness, I appreciate the deal that the minister worked out. But in fairness, wasn't one of his concerns to reduce the number that would fall into supplemental estimates this year and into the operating budget next year? Wasn't that a feature of the deal? That was the reason why this, I would say, somewhat innovative solution — assuming that the comptroller general and, ultimately, the Auditor General sign off on it — to take money out of a capital budget is legitimate.

[1715]

So wasn't that really the concern of the minister: "Things are tight this year, and this is the solution that I think is best because it will look better on the province's books this way"? Isn't that what took place?

Hon. C. Hansen: It was not a question of what looks better on the books. It's true, as the member indicates, that we recognized that we were going to have limited fiscal room in the budget this year and especially in the '09-10 fiscal year, when we had originally put in the balance of the $87.5 million. So the member is correct in that it is because of those budget pressures that we advanced a proposal to the federal government that would result in us capping our obligations for the security costs at $87.5 million.

B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for that candid concession. Will the minister confirm, just before I move from this topic, then, that the treatment of the $165 million, which is linked, as the minister has agreed, to the $87.5 million in one negotiation, will be approved not only by the comptroller general — who, I gather, has already done that in a verbal opinion — but that the minister is confident that that will be approved by the Auditor General when he comes to pass judgment on this fiscal arrangement?

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member knows, the Auditor General is an independent officer of this Legislature, and he certainly has the power and the flexibility to pursue this in any way that he wishes. We will certainly provide him or his office any of the background information that he might seek if he were to decide to investigate this further. But it is the opinion of the comptroller general that we need to seek out, to ensure that we are presenting the province's books and finances in the appropriate way, consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.

H. Bains: I have a few more questions along the lines that my colleague has asked, but let me go back to a question that we were talking about, a topic, earlier. Did the minister ever come across or see a memorandum on cost-sharing between the province and the federal government, perhaps in a draft or real, going back to 2004?

Hon. C. Hansen: I see lots of things. Certainly, there's nothing, the way the member described it, that I would be familiar with. I certainly don't recollect ever seeing any document like that.

H. Bains: Perhaps…. Let me put it this way. The agreement between the federal and provincial government was signed in December 2006 — the cost-sharing agreement on security. Was there another real or draft agreement that existed prior to that agreement being signed?

Hon. C. Hansen: Not that I'm aware of.

H. Bains: So I'll just sort of remind the minister that the document that was received by the media was
[ Page 14183 ]
a working document of Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit. They identified…. Basically, this document is named Financial Resource Gap: Peaceful Holding of the Games. This thing was dated September 9, 2005. In the back here it shows references — 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games security cost-sharing memorandum of agreement draft between Canada and the province of British Columbia, dated August 4, 2004, unsigned.

I was just asking the minister whether the minister has ever seen that document. Obviously, the ISU had that document. They made references, and they used that as a reference when they came up with this document.

[1720]

Hon. C. Hansen: I've not seen that, and I think if that document was circulating, perhaps in draft form between the two levels of government, it would have come to the Solicitor General.

H. Bains: Let me move on to a couple of other questions on the provincial responsibility. Did the province ever initiate or establish a planning process that would be guiding the province to deal with provincial responsibility? Was there any process established on how to identify provincial responsibility and whether our $87.5 million will cover those responsibilities? Was there any process in place by the minister's office or by the Solicitor General?

Hon. C. Hansen: The process was set out in the security agreement, and it would be the security committee. As I have indicated on several occasions this afternoon, it was the RCMP that had responsibility for developing the security plan, the security budget and all aspects of security, so any of that kind of work would have come from the RCMP and the vehicle that we had set up at the time. Although it didn't prove to function, I think, as people had anticipated it would, it would have been through the security committee.

H. Bains: Let me ask the minister in a bit more direct way. Does the provincial government have any kind of a planning document that outlines all the gaps that may exist from the provincial end of things in terms of Olympic security?

Hon. C. Hansen: Not to the best of my knowledge. If any work like that had been done, it would have been channelled to the Solicitor General, but I'm certainly not aware of any such document.

H. Bains: So the minister has not seen any document that would identify a provincial gap or would call itself a provincial gap analysis. Can the minister confirm he has never seen any of that document?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's correct.

H. Bains: As part of negotiations on the security budget with the federal government, I understand that the RCMP had the responsibility to put together a security budget and the security plan. But as negotiation between the provincial and the federal government, were there any discussions about some sorts of in-kind benefits the province would be providing as their share of taking responsibility on the security budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: Not that I'm aware of.

H. Bains: Is the minister saying, then, that the province never offered any in-kind contributions towards security budget or towards security planning, whether to the RCMP or to the federal government, in negotiations?

Hon. C. Hansen: To the best of my knowledge, there was no offer that somehow value-in-kind would replace our $87.5 million obligation. I am aware that the RCMP, in their planning for Olympic security, have looked at what employees of the provincial government may be able to assist them with in their work, and there have been discussions, but I don't know that it was ever offered up as in-kind contribution.

H. Bains: I'm not asking whether there were any in-kind offers made to offset the provincial responsibility towards the $87.5 million. It could be outside of the $87.5 million. My question is whether…. The minister has already answered that no such offer was made or discussed to replace or offset the $87.5 million. Was any in-kind responsibility taken by the provincial government outside of the $87.5 million?

[1725]

Hon. C. Hansen: To the best of my knowledge, the province has never offered up services or other things that may be looked at as being in kind.

As I mentioned earlier, I know that the RCMP has had discussions with various ministries with regard to provincial government employees who may be able to assist them in their work.

For example, the sheriff services is one that would have skills that may be of use to the RCMP. But it has been the RCMP that have been doing the planning. They've been identifying what their needs are. From time to time, I am sure, they have been in discussions with the province with regard to what various provincial ministries may be able to do to assist them in their work.

H. Bains: So would that be part of the RCMP or the sheriff services' regular duties, or were we talking about incremental costs to those two entities?
[ Page 14184 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I am not aware of that level of detail, other than the fact that I know there have been conversations that have been engaged.

What I can tell the member is that that would not be funded out of the dollars that are before us in the supplemental estimates.

H. Bains: I'll go back to some of the questions that my colleague from Surrey-Whalley was asking.

In arriving at a final agreement…. And the minister's answer was that there were some negotiations at a certain level and negotiations somewhere else. My question is: when negotiations took place to arrive at the final arrangement, did the federal government ever suggest to the province, after agreeing what the provincial responsibility is towards security costs, what the total value of the provincial responsibility would be — in addition to $87.5 million?

Hon. C. Hansen: The proposal that the federal government had made to the province in the middle of last year was that the province should assume responsibility for 50 percent of the RCMP cost, which at the time was estimated to be $498 million. So what the federal government at that time was looking for was 50 percent of that from the province, which would have been $249 million.

H. Bains: So the minister or the provincial government, rather than saying, "Yes, we will take $249 million. That's our responsibility…." What made the minister or the representative of the minister — rather than saying, "That's what our security cost responsibility is. It has been identified, the federal government" — somehow say: "Let's go somewhere else and get that money and raise our responsibility to the infrastructure capital funding"? How did that discussion take place — how from security over to the infrastructure capital funding? How do you arrive at that?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think as I indicated to the member for Surrey-Whalley just a short while ago, we negotiated with the federal government to cap our cost of the Olympic security budget at $87.5 million and, in a separate negotiation, agreed on the infrastructure side that the province would assume $165 million more of infrastructure costs that the province otherwise would probably not have had to assume responsibility for.

H. Bains: Can the minister explain? I'm looking at that agreement that was signed in January 2009. It's about 11 pages long, but about seven of them talk about dispute resolution, and only about four talk about the agreement. Can the minister say…? What otherwise, I would suggest, would have been very, very complicated negotiations. Why is this agreement signed, written and laid out in such a simplistic form — what obviously is quite a complicated set of negotiations?

[1730]

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not a lawyer. I've never had any legal training, but I know that the member for Surrey-Whalley would probably share the member's surprise that an agreement can be actually put together by lawyers that is as concise as this is and only fills 11 pages. Clearly, the individuals that drafted this agreement were obviously focused in on what exactly needed to be covered, and the lawyers that drafted it felt that this was appropriate to cover all the bases.

H. Bains: Obviously, the lawyers were working by the hour. Their part of the agreement covers seven pages, and the real agreement only covers four pages, so I'll just leave it at that.

Is there any other written agreement that the feds lay out with the details of the B.C. commitment to pay $165 million in additional infrastructure costs for Olympic security?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think — as the member will recall, because he was there at the press conference when we set out this arrangement — there are two separate agreements. We made both of them public that day. They're both up on our website as of that day. One is for the security agreement, and the other is with regard to infrastructure.

H. Bains: Did the province take on any other responsibility? They took on the responsibility to take an additional $165 million. Did the province take on any other responsibility under any other agreement in order to secure the Olympic security agreement, whereas the federal government would be responsible for the entire additional security cost?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is no.

H. Bains: Were any host cities involved in developing this security budget? Did they have any representatives meeting with the provincial or federal government or the RCMP?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned on several occasions, it's the RCMP, through the Integrated Security Unit, that is responsible for developing the security plan and the security budget. I know that they would have been engaged with the various municipal police forces and are working quite closely with them.

H. Bains: Perhaps I could ask the minister: now that, although indirectly, $165 million can be related to the
[ Page 14185 ]
Olympic security cost — because that was what was bargained in order to secure the security agreement, a cost-sharing agreement with the federal government — can the minister assure this House that there will be no further cost of security to the province?

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer to that is yes. This security agreement caps our commitment to the Olympic security cost at $87.5 million. The federal government assumes all responsibility for all additional costs.

H. Bains: Now that we know that $252 million is the responsibility of the provincial government out of the total of $900 million for the security cost, can the minister advise this House whether any of this budget — $900 million or the provincial portion — covers the security cost for Crown corporations, infrastructure? Maybe more specifically, let me ask the minister whether this budget would pay additional security that may be required by TransLink to secure their lines, their trains and their tunnels.

[1735]

Hon. C. Hansen: I think any corporation that's operating in British Columbia, and indeed any individual, would get the benefit of the security that would flow as a result of the security plan that's in place. But in addition, any corporation, whether it was a Crown corporation or a private company, would also have responsibility for its own security issues. And that would be regardless of whether that security cost was in the month of February — or March, we are now — of 2009 or whether that would be in February of 2010.

What's set out in the agreement is for the security plan around the Olympics, and that is security for our visitors. It's for athletes, it's for British Columbians generally, and it's to make sure that we have safe and secure games, which I have every confidence in the RCMP to deliver on.

H. Bains: So the minister is saying that these numbers we are talking about — $252 million or $900 million; the total security budget — will not cover any security arrangement that TransLink may require during those three weeks, four weeks or five weeks around the 2010 Olympics. None of this money will go to TransLink to upgrade their security. As we all know and the experts have been saying to us, the Olympic Games is the type of project or the type of event that attracts bad people, the terrorists, because this is where they also get the most exposure.

Is the minister saying that none of the money that we are talking about today, which I mean is $252 million or $900 million, will cover any of the cost that TransLink may incur to beef up their security during the Olympic period?

Hon. C. Hansen: No, I did not say that. I have no intimate knowledge of the RCMP's security plan. I have no intimate knowledge of what plans they have to mitigate any potential terrorism threats. I think, as we mentioned earlier, that that never has been part of the scope of the responsibility of the provincial government. That has always been 100 percent the scope of the federal government through the RCMP.

As the RCMP have publicly indicated, they are planning the security for the games at a medium-security threat level. I quite frankly don't know whether that would include resources out of their overall global $900 million budget that would address potential threats that would be incurred by any individual corporation today, whether that's a Crown corporation or otherwise.

H. Bains: Does the minister know whether the Crown corporations that we are talking about, which may feel that they need extra security during the Olympics, have been communicated to, have received any communication from the RCMP, from the government or from the Solicitor General's office about what their responsibility is as far as the security is concerned during the Olympics?

Actually, my question is: does the minister know if there is any communication pertaining to the security of their facilities and their infrastructure during the Olympics?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the ISU has been in discussions with the TransLink security force.

H. Bains: Does this money that we are talking about — the global or the provincial responsibility — go towards funding for the security of cultural or celebratory events during the Olympics?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think what the member is referring to is what in the discussions gets referred to as urban domain. It's actually just the kind of policing that would be required for, generally, crowd control on the streets and around the different parts of the city where people will be gathering.

[1740]

That's often referred to as urban domain, and it's the same context as if there was a Grey Cup game or a fireworks festival in Vancouver, where there are, obviously, policing issues.

In the security agreement the federal government acknowledges that within their global budget of $900 million they have allocated $21.7 million for increased costs for security in the urban domain and for traffic management. That would be provided for by the RCMP.

H. Bains: Can the minister perhaps explain the definition of "urban domain"?
[ Page 14186 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, in the agreement, under the definitions section, it describes…. Well, it's what's referred to as the "urban domain and traffic management amount," and it means "the amount of $21.7 million for increased costs for security in the urban domain and for traffic management based on the multi-year budget updates delivered to the security committee on June 30, 2008, by the RCMP."

I don't pretend to be an expert in policing, but my understanding of the definition of urban domain in this context is the general policing obligations of our municipally based police forces in the Lower Mainland, as well as in Whistler.

H. Bains: Can I ask the minister: if $21.7 million is set aside for security coverage for areas described as urban domain, can the minister explain whether the $21.7 million is incremental cost? And how do you define incremental cost for the urban domains?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I understand it, again, this isn't part of the provincial government's role. The RCMP, through the Integrated Security Unit, has been working with the various municipal police forces to identify what kinds of additional cost pressures, over and above what their base budgets would be expected to provide, might be realized. This number of $21.7 million was arrived at as an amount that would cover those incremental costs.

From this point forward that does not involve the province. It involves the Integrated Security Unit working with the various municipal police forces with regard to how that $21.7 million is allocated.

H. Bains: If the province is not involved in allocating this $21.7 million fund and if the municipalities where these events are being held or will be held felt that the $21.7 million is not sufficient, who would be responsible for the extra cost that the municipality may incur?

Hon. C. Hansen: They would have to sit down and talk to the RCMP about that, but my understanding is that many of those discussions have already taken place. That has led to this number of $21.7 million being arrived at.

H. Bains: Is it the minister's understanding that that is the understanding reached on what in the agreement are called base resources, which will be managed by the local authorities and local governments and the RCMP? This agreement says that they will be entitled to $21.7 million. Have they all agreed to this?

Hon. C. Hansen: That would be a discussion between the RCMP and the municipalities. I'm not privy to it.

[1745]

H. Bains: Let me ask about another area that sometimes requires extra security — actually, it attracts all kinds of people — and that would require you to shore up the security more than normal events. It is about the torch relay. As I understand it, it is going to go through over a thousand communities, and many of them are in the province of B.C. Can the minister advise whether this funding, the global funding — $900 million or the province's portion — would cover providing security for torch relay events?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

H. Bains: The local authorities and anyone who has applied and has been identified, the local communities, do not have to worry about their own cost during the time of the torch relay or during the preparation or after if it relates to the torch relay. They don't need to worry about that? I just want to make sure the minister will clarify that those communities will not be held responsible to come up with their own security and that this budget will cover that security.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes. The federal government, as a result of this agreement, has responsibility for the security for the torch relay. My understanding is that the RCMP has included those costs in its global budget of $900 million.

H. Bains: Perhaps I could ask the minister about emergency planning in the province of British Columbia — whether there's any funding that would be provided through the $900 million provincially to talk about emergency planning for the province.

Hon. C. Hansen: I am aware that the Integrated Security Unit has been in discussions with the provincial emergency planning branch. I think that, as the member knows, we probably have one of the finest emergency planning processes in Canada, and I think the PEP group serves the province well. I'm sure that the RCMP will be taking advantage of their expertise where appropriate.

H. Bains: My question was whether any funding is allocated to that process out of this $900 million, or the provincial portion, that we talked about. When I ask these questions, I'm asking about the security budget that we are talking about, which is $900 million, and the provincial portion thereof. Is there any funding available in emergency preparedness as far as those discussions are concerned?

Hon. C. Hansen: In the press release that the federal Minister of Public Safety released on February 19, it indicates that of the overall global budget, there is $1.2
[ Page 14187 ]
million to Public Safety Canada to "coordinate with federal organizations responsible for 2010 security and public safety issues, provinces, territories, first responders, industry and international counterparts." It's on the website of Public Safety Canada.

H. Bains: Can we take five minutes?

The Chair: We'll take a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 5:49 p.m. to 5:52 p.m.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could explain to the House about the ambulance services that may be needed outside of the venues. Is there any funding set aside for that out of this budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: With all due respect to the member, I would suggest that that's outside of the scope of what we're here to talk about. We're here to talk about the balance of $87.5 million of security being transferred to the federal government. So the federal government assumes all responsibilities for the security budget and planning going forward.

H. Bains: I think the minister earlier was suggesting emergency preparedness…. There is some money set aside for that. Isn't any money for ambulances? Wouldn't that be part of that agreement?

Hon. C. Hansen: The Ambulance Service is not part of the RCMP's security plan. I'm sure that the Ambulance Service will be there to serve all aspects of the games and will be there to provide assistance, whether it's to a tourist or an athlete or a visitor or a member of one of the security teams. But they would not become an integral part of the delivering of security.

H. Bains: Part of that, I would suggest…. I think many would agree that when we are talking about security, we are also talking about in the event that something out of the normal happens. To deal with that situation, ambulance services are required. So I'm suggesting to the minister that if he's suggesting that the Ambulance Service is not part of the security budget and that it falls outside of the security budget, then perhaps the minister can say that.

[1755]

Then I guess the question we would ask later or outside of this discussion: who covers and provides for that service?

Hon. C. Hansen: That would not be covered out of the security budget.

H. Bains: I think the other parts would be under traffic management. It's also whether that is a part of the security arrangement and whether the minister has been made aware if the security planning would have the traffic management part of that planning.

Hon. C. Hansen: I will reiterate what we talked about just a few minutes ago. The urban domain and traffic management amount means an amount of $21.7 million.

H. Bains: So as we move on, traffic management, then, is part of the urban domain, and the $21.7 million also will cover that part?

Hon. C. Hansen: Out of the overall global security budget of $900 million, there is $21.7 million that is specifically allocated for urban domain and traffic management.

H. Bains: Let me ask the minister. VANOC is supposed to come up with its own transportation plan, and my question to the minister is whether this $21 million goes towards any of that transportation plan that VANOC will be putting together.

Hon. C. Hansen: No.

H. Bains: Can the minister…? I still have not seen…. I just want to go back, so that we are clarified. Is there any written definition of the games security coverage area? Has that definition been put together and agreed to?

Hon. C. Hansen: That issue is moot, because the agreement that referenced the games security coverage area is no longer an agreement. That agreement has now been superseded by the agreement that was signed in January.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister could tell us how many venues actually are covered by this budget.

Hon. C. Hansen: All of them.

H. Bains: Can the minister number them? How many are there?

Hon. C. Hansen: The RCMP identifies what they consider to be a venue, and their definition would not match my definition of what constitutes a venue. We have, as the member knows, the sports venues and the two athletes villages. That's what I would define as a venue, but there's not one definition that sort of suits all purposes.

H. Bains: We're not sure how many venues are out there? There's a dispute, you know, between RCMP and
[ Page 14188 ]
the local government. Why can't the minister name or number how many venues are out there?

Hon. C. Hansen: Because it's absolutely irrelevant. The federal government, through the RCMP, have now assumed all responsibility for all of the security for all of the venues, so it's quite frankly irrelevant as to what I think is or isn't a venue. It's up to the RCMP to determine that. They've got sole responsibility. We're cutting them a cheque for the balance of our $87.5 million. The rest of the responsibility is all theirs.

[1800]

H. Bains: You know, we're talking about our government, which has the responsibility to protect the citizens, to make sure that the visitors that will come to these games are protected and that the athletes that are coming here are protected. The minister is simply saying: "I'll cut the cheque, and then I'll wash my hands and say that I'm not responsible as a government for the security of our citizens, for the security of the athletes and the visitors that will come here."

I'm asking whether the minister asked those questions. What would be covered? The minister, you would think, would be worried to make sure that all venues — the venues that the minister thinks should be covered — are covered, rather than there being a dispute later on. Whether the RCMP or the federal government say: "Well, we never agreed to that venue — that it should be covered or not…."

My question is: does the minister know that every venue has been identified? Has the minister seen the list, and is he satisfied that those venues will be protected under this agreement as far as security is concerned?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is not a question of whether or not…. We did not negotiate for the RCMP to cover certain venues. Our negotiation with the federal government was that the federal government take responsibility for all of the security obligations with regard to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. That includes all of the venues, and I can assure the member that every place that I could possibly conceive of as being a "venue" is covered by the RCMP's security plan.

H. Bains: I think the minister knows that VANOC includes over 100 sites on its master venue list. I was asking a question — whether the minister agrees that with the funding we are providing, we are satisfied that all of those venues that are identified by VANOC will be protected and the security will be provided.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

H. Bains: In conclusion, I want to thank the minister, and I want to thank the staff. Those are my questions. Hopefully, we will have more discussions on these in the weeks and months to come, and we'll get some more answers.

Vote 24(S): ministry operations, $83,700,000 — approved.

The Chair: We'll take a three-minute or a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 6:04 p.m. to 6:05 p.m.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

On Vote 45(S): contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $125,000,000.

B. Ralston: The note that's provided in the supplementary estimates reads that this $125 million is for "increased flexibility to accommodate the financial consequences of unanticipated events or pressures emerging from the current economic circumstances." Also, in the title, it mentions new programs. Given that we are less than one month from the end of the financial year on March 31, can the minister advise what new programs he's proposing to launch, should this $125 million appropriation be passed?

Hon. C. Hansen: This reflects what I've been saying, actually, through the fall months and the first two months of this year, that given the economic circumstances that we're in today, I do not believe that this is a year that the province should end with a substantial surplus; and that if the government has identified or is anticipating that there may be revenues in excess of what had been budgeted for, then this is the year that the government should ensure that those dollars are funnelled back into the economy in a way that can help mitigate some of the economic downturn as we go through.

So these would not constitute new programs. But I think, as the definition goes, the terminology that's used in the budget is with regard to other programs. But they would not…. They may be enhancements to existing programs, if that's what is seen to be the greatest need, but it is not something that would contemplate new programs being rolled out.

B. Ralston: Clearly, then, the note that refers to — and I'm quoting directly — "new programs" is wrong. That's misleading, according to the minister.

Given that it is $125 million, and given that we are very close, within less than 30 days from the end of the fiscal year, can the minister advise what spending plans he has for this $125 million?
[ Page 14189 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: If we had specific plans, they would have been reflected in the supplemental estimate. This is basically an appropriation so that if we can identify at year-end that there are additional revenues over and above what had been budgeted for, for which there are existing appropriations, then it would give the province the ability to ensure that those dollars can flow back into the economy.

B. Ralston: Well, with all due respect to the minister, I find it difficult to accept that the minister has no idea about the possible direction that this $125 million might flow. Surely Treasury Board…. There is some plan. There's a list of priorities. There is some sense of emerging trends where this might need to be spent.

So unless it's just purely a pre-election slush fund that the minister is going to roll out in announcements down the road, I think the obligation on the part of the minister for this kind of money is to provide some explanation of its likely use.

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer, actually, to the member's point is in the supplemental estimates. We've identified $497 million of new initiatives and projects which we believe should be funded out of the additional revenues that the province can project to the end of the year. Those are covered in the supplemental estimates, and all of the detail is set out.

What we are asking for in addition to those approximately $500 million worth of initiatives is an additional $125 million that would allow us the flexibility to flow those dollars, should we be able to confirm that, in fact, the government revenues can be proven over and above that $500 million, which is included in the rest of the supplemental estimate.

[1810]

The member will be aware that in years previous, as we entered the fourth quarter of the fiscal year, there was typically a forecast allowance that still remained for that remaining three months of the fiscal year. This year, because of the economic conditions that the province finds itself in because of the global economic challenges, we felt that it was prudent not to leave that in a forecast allowance which, if it were not required for a forecast allowance, would have simply resulted in a much larger surplus.

We felt that this was the year to ensure that if there were additional revenues that could be proven at year-end, we should flow those dollars back into programs. There are no commitments that have been made against those funds to date. We would only make such commitments once we were 100 percent confident that the revenues were going to materialize and therefore would not take a risk of putting the province into deficit in the fiscal year that we're in currently.

B. Ralston: I have had this discussion with the minister before, but I'll take it up again. Given that we are very close to year-end, March 3…. The minister receives, particularly in the current economic circumstances, updates on the projected revenue and government revenue to year-end.

Can the minister advise what the latest projection is? Obviously, that's conditioning his response here today. He says he's going to base it on available revenue, understandably. So can the minister advise what the latest projection of the finances of the province will be at year-end — I guess 28 days from now?

Hon. C. Hansen: The latest projections are that based on the revenue projections that the ministry has made, the province — that's assuming that all of those revenues materialize — would have ended the fiscal year with $622 million over and above the budgeted $50 million surplus.

That is really what drives the supplemental estimate that's before us today — the $622 million that we are requesting appropriation for. And that is in anticipation that the revenues that had been forecast will, in fact, materialize. We are certainly confident that the $497 million that's necessary to fund the other aspects of this supplemental estimate will materialize, but as we consolidate all of our year-end numbers, there is still some volatility to that.

That is why we would not want to commit the remaining $125 million until we are absolutely certain that the revenues will materialize. I think the member knows the kind of volatility that we've seen on the revenue track, and we certainly will not make commitments that would put this province into deficit.

B. Ralston: Can the minister just briefly enumerate the areas of uncertainty in the budget that are not nailed down at this point, that compose the $125 million? If he could give the House some sense of where that revenue might be and why it's still uncertain at this point.

Hon. C. Hansen: Nothing has changed on the forecast side since the day that the budget was tabled. As we approach year-end, we consolidate all of the data that comes in to define exactly what the province can bank on in terms of revenues. Those aren't consolidated on a daily basis. They're consolidated at certain periods of time, and as we approach the year-end, we will be doing that consolidation.

[1815]

B. Ralston: Well, we're obviously very close to the year-end. Can the minister advise when he expects to have that number? Would it be presented, for example, tomorrow morning to the cabinet as a part of a view to year-end, or will we have to wait a little longer?

Hon. C. Hansen: Until we actually get to year-end, you can't be certain of exactly what your revenues were. We make projections; we make forecasts. And it's based
[ Page 14190 ]
on those forecasts that we are putting forward this supplemental estimate.

If I were 100 percent confident that this $125 million would materialize at year-end, then we would have included that in the standard format of supplemental estimates rather than putting it into the contingency fund, which is how we're presenting it, because we do not want to make commitments against that revenue, even though it's projected, even though we expect it. Until such time as we can verify that and confirm it, we will not be making commitments against those dollars.

B. Ralston: As I understand it, the minister is saying that if this $125 million of revenue does materialize, then it would be applied against the various headings of programs that we've previously dealt with in these supplementary estimates.

Can the minister give some indication of the priority that's being thought of, given that there's a very compressed period of time before this decision would have to be made? Is there consideration that it go to Health Services, for example? There's a $120 million supplemental estimate, which was debated here earlier.

But in the event that the $125 million does materialize at year-end, would that be the first priority, given I know that the government has suggested that health and education are priorities that it seeks to fund first? So it would seem that that might be a logical place for that $125 million to be spent, should it become available. I guess what I'm asking the minister is: what is the contingency plan for spending that goes with this contingency of $125 million?

Hon. C. Hansen: I apologize to the member if I left him with the wrong impression.

The other items that are funded out of this supplemental estimate, the $495 million, are specific items. There are specific appropriations for those, which would be approved as a result of this supplemental estimate.

The $125 million is totally separate from that, and roughly $500 million over and above that, for the balance of that $625 million, and there are not commitments made against that.

If the dollars materialize, if we can confirm them, then we will look at what priorities might be appropriate for that. I would be very reluctant to speculate on what might be funded out of that, if we were to see those revenues materialize, because I would not want to raise expectations on the part of the organizations that might be recipients of this, only to have their hopes dashed should these revenues not materialize by year-end. We basically would have to leave the $125 million unspent.

B. Ralston: I can well understand the minister's concern not to raise expectations, and probably not to raise the expectations of his cabinet colleagues, either. I suppose that's part of the job. But it does seem to me that in….

The minister has ruled out new programs and has said that we are also approving — and we've had the votes already — a number of very specific areas, if I might go through them. From what I understand the minister saying, it's unlikely, for example — it's highly unlikely, if not impossible — that there would be any addition to the $87.7 million to fulfil the province's commitment on the Olympic security costs. That cost isn't going to go up. So if there is a contingency, it's not going to go there.

[1820]

It doesn't sound like Housing and Social Development. The $30 million there sounds like it's largely a question of acquisition of specific properties, and most of those deals are completed for dollar amounts that are known amounts. So it seems, again, unlikely that it would go there.

The Ministry of Labour: $2.2 million to provide Internet connectivity. Again, seems to be a fairly specific number, and I'm sure Treasury Board has hammered that number out. So that seems to be a very specific number.

Ministry of Tourism. It's $15.1 million in specific grants that are all enumerated and, I think, were canvassed very thoroughly.

I appreciate that the minister doesn't want to raise expectations, but we are voting on a contingency of $125 million. Surely, there must be — and the minister, I think, has some obligation to give — some sense of where those priorities, strategic priorities, might be and where that money might be spent. Without feeding the raising of expectations in a way that the minister doesn't want to, it seems to me that that's a legitimate question to ask, given the dollar amount, and this is really the only opportunity to question it.

I recall the minister's predecessor in this place saying that this was…. The evidence of the accountability of a government in this process was this very process, the supplementary estimates process. There was debate, questions were asked, and presumably, occasionally responses were given. That was the very essence of the accountability in this process.

It seems to me that the minister has some obligation to give a sense of the direction, without violating the concerns that he's expressed.

Hon. C. Hansen: The first priority that we would look at is what some of the obligations are that the province may incur in the coming fiscal year that we may be…. We've seen evidence and some examples of that.

I think the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts was quite forthright in talking about the budget constraints next year and how, if we can provide extra grants to arts organizations this year, then that actually ensures that they've got extra cash in the bank to deal with their immediate challenges, because we may be in tighter financial circumstances in the coming year.
[ Page 14191 ]

If there are other examples like that across government, where we may be able to provide grants this year in recognition that we may not be able to provide grants next year, then that's certainly the kind of thing that we would look at as a priority.

Also, I think, this is not…. When I say that there are not going to be new programs, it's because when you're at the 27th of March, it's pretty hard to ramp up a program and flow those dollars in three days of operating budget. This, by definition, would be funds that would flow out to organizations that are outside of the provincial government reporting entity.

We would be looking at possibilities there. I don't have a specific list of things that would be funded at this point. If this Legislature approves of this supplemental estimate, then we will, first of all, do the work that needs to be done to confirm that the revenues will materialize, and then we will decide to try to look at what the appropriate priorities for it should be.

B. Ralston: I'm mindful of what the minister has said about not wanting to raise expectations. I understand that, and I support that. But the minister did mention the government reporting entity. The SUCH sector is for some purposes in the government reporting entity and for some purposes not.

Is that possibility of further grants to that sector ruled out in the minister's mind, or is that something that he would rather just take under advisement? Is there a response that the minister can make here, bearing in mind the cautions that he set out earlier?

[1825]

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, if we were to flow dollars out of this contingency fund and put it into an entity that's within the government reporting entity, it would be the equivalent of basically taking a bucket of water out of the deep end of the pool and taking it down and putting it in the shallow end of the pool. It's still all within the government reporting entity, and it would balance out in terms of the overall financial reporting.

The intention would be that we would identify the appropriate bodies that could benefit from additional dollars, and we would flow those dollars accordingly.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 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. C. Hansen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:27 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