2009 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 39, Number 6

[ Page 14235 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2009

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report No. 16, 2008-2009, Homelessness: Clear Focus Needed.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Christensen: I call continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. P. Bell: It's a real pleasure for me to stand today and speak in favour of Budget 2009-10. I want to take my time to talk about my vision for the forest industry and what I think is a very bright future for the industry in the most challenging times that the globe has ever faced.

Forestry is still a key part of our economy throughout British Columbia. In fact, about 7 percent of our gross domestic product is still driven as a direct result of the forest industry. Over 40 percent of our global exports still relate directly back to our lumber products, our pulp and paper products, and that continues to be a major economic driver throughout British Columbia.

Typically, our forest product exports are in the range of $10 billion to $14 billion a year. I will take some time in a few moments to talk about the opportunities that exist, as I see it, with new markets, new export opportunities and how we can create a higher-valued industry. But I want to start and talk about four key themes that I think are important for our industry moving forward.

The first key theme is that of utilization of our forest products. I worked in the forest industry for about eight or nine years through the 1990s, and the model of forestry that I practised was a bit different than the normal model at the time. It was more of a coastal model of forestry that was looking to extract maximum value, but I worked in the interior of the province, not on the coast.

[1005]

I was looking at ways of extracting more value from each and every log that we touched, and our utilization standards were very high. I want to bring that same model to all of forestry in British Columbia.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The new world around bioenergy, around full utilization of our stands, I think, is one that can drive our forest economies across the province. Depending on who you talk to and whose advice you receive, there are residual volumes ranging from 10 to 30 percent of a typical tree that is left behind in our forest, currently unutilized or underutilized. One only has to fly over the province during the fall months to see the number of slash piles that are being burned. I think that has to end.

I think we need a new model of forestry that captures full value from those stands, and there's a lot of work going on right now across the province that I believe will make that a reality in a very short period of time.

I can tell you that I was on two different sites this winter, one in the Prince George area and one down in the Logan Lake area, where exactly that is happening today. Entrepreneurs have purchased grinders and are starting to utilize some of that residual material to maximize the value of the stands they're harvesting. It was very impressive to see the work they were doing.

Ray Brandner and Pine Star Logging are good examples of that. He has purchased a grinder that's about a three-quarters-of-a-million-dollar investment. He's grinding up residual piles — the slash piles that everyone looks at and often thinks are a huge waste — and bringing that material into a pellet plant, Pacific Bioenergy in Prince George. Fully 60 percent of the material he is grinding up today and bringing into Prince George is driving the pellet industry at that particular plant, and that particular plant would not survive today if it wasn't for that residual material.

The pellet industry in British Columbia is a very, very productive industry. It is a growing industry, one that we expect will continue to grow in the coming years. We produced in the order of 1.4 million tonnes of pellets last year. That's up from about 900,000 tonnes the year before. The industry is growing very, very quickly, and I think it's good news.

Interestingly, what we find with the pellet industry is that about 90 percent of that product is currently exported into the Scandinavian countries, and most people would wonder why it is that we're not consuming that product here in British Columbia. What is it about the Scandinavian countries that allows them to generate electricity from this product that has perhaps prevented or not made it economic here in British Columbia?

One just has to look at the advancements in the Scandinavian countries, in particular around bioenergy, and the value that they associate to renewable fuels and the carbon taxes or substitutes for carbon taxes that they use in the Scandinavian countries.

As we put our pellets into ships and ship them halfway around the globe, it adds a significant cost. It's about $50 a tonne in cost that gets added to the pellets that are shipped around the world. Yet they still take those pellets, put them into electrical generating facilities
[ Page 14236 ]
that used to burn coal, produce electricity and sell competitively into the marketplace. So it's a huge economic driver and a huge opportunity. It is the growth sector of our industry here in British Columbia — as I mentioned earlier, a significant incremental growth.

As I talk to our pellet producers, they advise me that the carbon credit component of their industry is valued at about $50 million per year, so it is a very exciting industry. It is driven by a very forward-thinking group of individuals in the Scandinavian countries who respect a low-carbon economy and understand the importance of reducing our emissions in the global environment if we are really to limit the impacts of climate change going forward.

That's expanding across the world right now. There's a huge amount of interest in the United States being driven through President Obama, looking at green technologies and green opportunities for generating power. Wood pellets are a classic example of something that President Obama could lead on and utilize to green his economy.

It's very easy to convert coal-fired electrical generating facilities over to pellets, and the consumptive requirements in the United States would far outstrip anything that we could possibly produce. Being a much closer market than the Scandinavian countries, the economics that would be driven around that are very exciting.

Ontario is also looking at a shift towards more of a green economy and the utilization of pellets in their electrical generating facilities, and there are great discussions going on there, as well, right now.

[1010]

Another country that is very interested in shifting to this technology is Korea. Korea is looking at how they can shift away from coal-fired electrical generation to pellets to produce much of their electricity, and there's real interest right now on the part of the Koreans in working with us. I think that over the next number of years you're going to see a rapid expansion in the pellet industry — one that will drive employment, will drive investment across the province and will start fully utilizing the resource.

That's just one component of a bioenergy industry. It is not necessarily a technology that has huge advancements that have been made in it, yet it still is as economic today. Ray Brandner and Pine Star Logging are demonstrating that it is possible and that he is able to make a go of a business in Prince George.

There's another one, as I mentioned, in Logan Lake that has two grinders of the same size as Ray's, which is working very well. One of our previous district managers Ron Russine has led that project and is showing real success. About 700 tonnes per week of that material is travelling to the Fraser Valley to be used in greenhouses. That is displacing coal as well — so very good news there. About 2,500 tonnes per week is going to Domtar in Kamloops to produce electricity.

So there's lots of good news around full utilization. I think there are about ten grinders at work around the province right now, and that's demonstrating that the goal I've set, and the dream I have, around full utilization is becoming a reality very, very quickly.

We have also created the B.C. bioenergy network and funded it with $25 million. It continues to provide grants to organizations that are looking at things like cellulosic ethanol and advanced gasification projects utilizing low-value wood products. This is an area, as well, that has huge potential here in British Columbia. The research facility at UBC has made tremendous advances, and we're seeing cellulosic ethanol getting off the test bench and going into a pre-commercialization phase.

Most people that you talk to believe that cellulosic ethanol is in a kind of three- to five-year range away from being a fully commercialized capability. So that's another exciting area that we want to continue to drive. The B.C. bioenergy network with $25 million is a key component of that.

We have driven through the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the ICE fund, the innovative clean energy fund, which is also providing grants to organizations that are moving our products from the test bench through the pre-commercialization phase to full commercialization. So our commitment to green energies is significant. We are leading the world in many areas around this, and it is something that we take very seriously.

The announcement around commercial forest reserve also helps us in this area, because that's about growing trees more efficiently, more quickly and creating the biomass opportunities for a future bioenergy industry.

B.C. Hydro also announced four successful proponents in phase 1 to utilize low-value wood or what currently is seen as low-value wood waste for bioenergy. Two of those are in my hometown of Prince George. There was an agreement with Canfor to purchase 70 gigawatt hours. Prince George Interior Waste to Energy is a greenfield site, a brand-new one that's going to be producing electricity with a significant investment at 70 gigawatts.

Mercer-Celgar in Castlegar and Domtar in Kamloops are both big players in the bioenergy industry with 201-gigawatt-hour agreements and 238-gigawatt-hour agreements respectively. We've also provided significant money through different partnerships at FPInnovations, UBC and UVic, which I've already talked about.

The notion of creating a full-utilization model, one that captures 100 percent of the value from our forests, is a priority for me personally and a priority for us as a government. We've seen significant headway over the last eight or nine months. I believe that over the next few years, the days of people complaining about waste in the bush will be behind us, and we will see jobs driven as a result of that across the economy.

The second key theme I have is that of growing trees. We're the best in the world at taking trees off the stump
[ Page 14237 ]
and getting them to the mill, and we're the best in the world at taking round trees and making flat boards. But because we have had what seemed to be an unlimited supply of fibre, we've always only followed basic silviculture practices. I think we need to move beyond that to far more advanced silviculture and full-rotation stand management.

[1015]

So my dream of the future — what I see as a future forest products industry — is one that has multiple points of entry from our silviculture specialists, where they go into the stands and they're thinning the stands. They're spacing the stands; they're brushing the stands; they're pruning the stands. They're getting the maximum value out of each and every tree through its growth period. You do that by being very proactive in terms of the tenures that we develop, the way we manage those stands.

There is a new value coming into play around that as well, and that new value is that of carbon and carbon sequestration in a cap-and-trade world. In a cap-and-trade world, the whole approach to that is that a respectful way of growing trees and sequestering carbon adds value in more ways than simply around creating products for end uses — products like lumber, products like pulp and paper and products like energy.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

As you move into a new world of cap-and-trade, of carbon sequestration, and start focusing more on growing trees, we can reduce the impact on the environment significantly around carbon dioxide emissions. As I'm sure members all know, through the process of growing trees, they take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. They sequester the carbon in the tree and allow oxygen to re-enter the atmosphere. It's the normal process of how we regenerate our planet.

In B.C. we have about 25 million hectares of timber-harvesting land base, and on average we grow about three cubic metres per hectare. If you talk to forest professionals around B.C., they will tell you that with proper forest management, they could increase that growth to four cubic metres per hectare or perhaps even more than that.

That's all carbon dioxide coming out of the environment, and I think that's a very exciting new industry that we can be promoting and expanding as we move into the western climate initiative.

I think there is a very important policy discussion going on globally right now that people should be paying attention to. Unfortunately, it has perhaps not got the level of attention that's necessary by the mainstream media and by the average individual in the public. I'm talking about the western climate initiative and the development of offsets in a cap-and-trade system.

The key theme here is: are we going to acknowledge that if we manage our stands cautiously and carefully and proactively, we can sequester incremental carbon in those stands over a period of time that would not normally be captured?

I was on a site just outside Terrace — and I often tell this story because I think it's particularly relevant — shortly after I was appointed as Minister of Forests and Range. This particular site had been harvested in 1958. I was there last year, so the site is about 50 years old at this point.

On that site there was a control side, where no incremental activity had taken place and the stand was just allowed to regenerate naturally. Then on the other side of the site, it had been proactively managed through a series of multiple entries onto the site and thinning and spacing and all kinds of increased activities.

It was a very, very interesting story to see the reality between those two different sites. After 50 years of growth — and this was a very high-value growing site — on the side that was the control side there was an average of 1,100 trees per hectare. The average piece size was about 0.35 of a cubic metre, so there was about 400 cubic metres of tree or sequestered carbon on that particular side of the stand.

On the other side, which had been proactively managed, it was quite a different story. On that side the average tree size was 1.3 cubic metres as opposed to 0.35 on the other side of the stand. There were 400 trees per hectare on that particular site, so an average of 550 cubic metres per hectare on the side that had been proactively managed. That's 150 cubic metres over a 50-year growing period per hectare, which means about an additional 135 tonnes of carbon that was sequestered.

It is a significant incremental amount of carbon, and if you extrapolate that over the landscape in British Columbia, we have huge potential. The debate that's going on at the western climate initiative right now is: how do you recognize that? How do you manage that?

I encourage everyone, anyone, that is watching this…. It doesn't matter whether it's opposition or the government side of the House. Anyone that is interested in B.C.'s forest products industry should be going to the western climate initiative website, getting involved in the debate and saying: "You know what? When we manage forests properly, proactively, when we try and sequester more carbon than we would under normal circumstances, we should get value for that. We should get acknowledged for that, and we should get paid for that in a cap-and-trade system."

[1020]

If that happens, it is a very, very bold move for the forest products industry in British Columbia. It's good news for all small communities. It doesn't matter what community you're in. This is a non-partisan issue.

This is about what's right for the forest products industry in British Columbia and what's right for British Columbians and what's right for the environment,
[ Page 14238 ]
frankly. When you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment, you limit the amount of carbon that's released.

I know there are some folks who don't believe that the climate is warming. Frankly, I think you have to have your head in the sand to believe that. I live in Prince George. The mountain pine beetle is a clear impact of climate change. The flooding activities that we had in 2007 are a clear impact of climate change.

When I logged through the 1990s, it was not uncommon to have minus-40 weather. If you go back to the '80s and '70s, you had colder temperatures than that. Today we don't get any sort of temperature like that. A very cold winter day in Prince George is minus 35 or minus 34.

Clearly, the climate is warming over a period of time. I don't know whether people entirely believe that or not. I do, but I'm not sure that they do. There are some people who will buy that the climate is warming, but they won't buy that it's us that are having anything to do with that — that humans are having anything to do with that.

When you look at different heavy industry, at the impacts just even of warming your house and using fossil fuels on the environment, it's pretty clear to me that we are in fact having an impact on the environment. But I don't know that everyone supports that, and I understand that.

I don't know whether or not people actually believe that we could have an impact, that we could change our behaviour, in a way — grow trees faster, use more fuel-efficient vehicles, utilize less fossil fuels. I happen to believe that we could have an impact on the warming of the climate. I'm not sure that everyone buys into that.

But even if you disregard all of that — even if you disregard the notion that the climate is warming, that it is us that are causing a significant component of that and that we could change that — the one thing I absolutely do know that no one can deny is that a low-carbon economy is great for B.C.'s forest products industry. It's an agenda that we need to drive and drive hard, and everyone should be on that.

B.C. is leading the debate right now around global climate change. B.C. is leading the debate around a cap-and-trade system and carbon sequestration and carbon sequestration–utilizing forest management. This is a debate that over the next five or six months will set the course for the next hundred years across North America and around the world. It's one that people should be engaged in and should be involved in, and if they do that, I think the future of the forest products industry is a very, very bright one.

The third item or the third key theme I want to talk about is that of expanding our international marketplace, particularly into China. I was over to China twice in 2008, and what is going on in that country is dramatic. It's still growing at 5 or 6 percent, according to the best numbers that we have today, against a world recession — against a recession that is constantly seeing bad news across the United States, into the European marketplace, in North America. Yet China continues to buck that trend and buck those numbers.

It is a market that we need to capture, and we've got good news going in there each and every day. There's a company called China National Building Material that is importing significant volumes of British Columbia lumber. I was standing in their warehouse in November last year, and it was all the wrappers from communities around B.C. that have produced that lumber — whether it was Mackenzie or Quesnel or Prince George or out into the Williams Lake and 100 Mile House area — and significant volumes of lumber.

There were about 50 million board feet in the warehouse, and they're importing in the range of up to 30 million board feet per month into CNBM at this point. The potential for our marketplace there is one that we believe could grow easily to four billion board feet by 2011.

We need an aggressive push into the Chinese marketplace in order to have the level of success that we think is possible in China. We have had some significant successes, the most recent one being the Shanghai government endorsing the new model of roof truss system for their buildings.

Shanghai is going to host Expo 2010. They're very excited about that, and they have something that they're calling the 600 days of construction leading up to 2010. One of their objectives is to put new roofs on 10,000 flat-roof apartments in the Shanghai area. The previous competitor to wood roof trusses was actually steel.

I was standing on one of the roofs last November, and they were hauling angle iron up onto some of these roofs and cutting and welding it in place. When we worked with them and showed them the potential of utilization of wood product, they loved the new model. It's less expensive for them to do, it's faster for them to do, and it produces a better end product for them.

[1025]

They much preferred the wood model to the steel model. So you're starting to see significant headway. That's all two-and-better lumber, which is really what we want to sell.

We have been selling a lot of lower grades to China over the last 16 or 18 months, but we want to step them up into our two-and-better product, which is the typical product that we use in the North American marketplace, and start to displace some of that volume and move it into the Chinese marketplace.

There's a great opportunity in the landscape market around our hemlock and cedar products. I can tell you that as a result of the trip we made there and a sale that Western Forest Products made, the Cowichan Bay mill continues to produce lumber specific to the Shanghai marketplace and a landscape thing that they are doing
[ Page 14239 ]
in Shanghai, a landscape venue that they're producing for Expo 2010.

So very exciting opportunities across China — 1.4 billion people. They are building rapidly. They are largely building these four- to six-storey walk-up apartments, and whether it's a wood roof truss system or partition walls or infill walls that we are working to develop with the Chinese, the marketplace is huge.

But I think the one thing that we've really learned is this. We've been over there for about six years now. We've got to make sure that we have the right product for the Chinese, and what the Chinese are interested in is dimensional lumber. What they're interested in is metric sizes of lumber, and we need to work proactively to make sure that we're providing that product to them.

I want to be absolutely clear about this, because occasionally people intimate that it's about raw logs. It's not about raw logs. It's about our lumber products. It's about our finished products. It's about sending a product to China that they can use, they can market and they can build their economy around. We're very proud of that, and we're going to continue to drive the agenda very, very hard.

The fourth and final key theme that I like to talk about all the time is non-residential construction. This is larger buildings. This is things like the Richmond ice oval, which is just a tremendous story — one that I think will resonate around the world as we welcome the world to our 2010 Olympics less than a year away. This building is a fabulous building, but the large glulam beams that were used in that structure span 120-foot width under a single arch.

The fantastic thing about it is, Mr. Speaker, that they were actually built in your riding. Structure Lam, based out of Okanagan Falls, built those large glulam beams. The wood was milled in the Kootenays at Kalesnikoff Lumber. It was actually fir that was grown in the Kootenays. It's a great B.C. success story. We need to continue to evolve that technology and market it around the world.

There are a number of key core elements that are important around that. Generally, engineers and architects are not well trained in the practice of building wood. We need to change that paradigm. We need architects and engineers to be thinking about wood first. So we've taken some bold steps in the province. We've said that all new buildings that have provincial government funding in them must target wood as their first opportunity for construction, and they must demonstrate that wood is not a viable product if they're going to build out of anything else. So that's going to force the market to start demonstrating what's possible around wood construction.

My colleague the Minister of Housing has been working to develop a new building code around six-storey wood buildings as well, and that's a huge new market and a huge opportunity. As we start building into this new world of larger residential and commercial construction, instead of all the concrete block buildings that you see all over North America, what we'd like to see is shifting gears into wood construction. The potential is huge around that.

We think that the overall potential in terms of wood is over 20 billion incremental board feet into the North American marketplace. We produce in British Columbia between ten and 14 billion board feet, so when you're adding that sort of potential market, it is very, very real, and it offers real diversification opportunities.

Building bigger buildings out of wood can really help drive that. There's a great story around carbon sequestration, because when you use concrete products, you have to make cement. When you make cement, you have to burn a lot of coal to produce the cement product. In fact, the cement industry is the second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in North America only behind transportation — so a huge emitter of carbon dioxide. Displacing cement with wood products is a very natural fit and one that makes a tremendous amount of sense for us.

Steel, of course, is the same thing. There's kind of an interesting story. My colleague the Minister of Education, the member for Prince George–Mount Robson, when she had responsibility as chair of the school board in Prince George made a conscious decision to build a middle school in Prince George out of wood instead of concrete and steel.

[1030]

So the displaced carbon, by sequestering into the wood versus creating carbon dioxide in the concrete-and-steel building, made quite a difference. It's a very interesting story.

If you were to remove cars from the road in order to get the same overall environmental benefit by building that same school out of wood instead of concrete and steel, it would translate into removing 10,620 cars from the road for a year — one building, a 700-student school, about 6,000 square metres in that particular building. So a very, very environmentally friendly building product.

Again, looking to President Obama and his interest in a significant infrastructure program across the United States and the real desire and commitment to doing it in a green way really helps build on the B.C. advantage.

We've got to be aggressive in this agenda. I know there are detractors who say that this isn't the right approach, but I believe it is the opportunity for a value-added or further manufacturing industry in B.C. — one that we've been unable to capture over the decades.

There's a whole new industry evolving out there, and I think that new industry will build on the core industries of solid-wood manufacturing and pulp and paper, which are always going to be critical components of our industry and, I believe, will always be the two primary cornerstones.

But the two new industries that will evolve in the coming decades, I believe, are the industry of bioenergy — of creating more fuels and more opportunities out
[ Page 14240 ]
of lower-value wood coming out of our forests — and then that of growing trees instead of just cutting them down. The silviculture industry, I believe, will expand exponentially over the next ten years as a result of a strong carbon agenda that this government has brought forward, contributing in a very real way to the impacts of climate change.

So the four key themes that I talk about all the time and that I think we can build a whole new industry around. Full utilization of our resource. Let's make sure we get every penny of value out of every tree that hits the ground. Let's do it in an environmentally friendly way, in a respectful way. Let's make sure that we leave enough coarse woody debris behind for the little critters that need that in our forests. But let's not use that as an excuse. Let's make sure we capture full value.

The second is really taking a very aggressive approach to silviculture in our province, growing trees far more efficiently than we ever have. The third is expanding into the Chinese market, growing that as a significant player, perhaps capturing up to 30 percent of our total production of lumber. The fourth is: let's start focusing on building big buildings. It's a huge opportunity.

I believe this industry has a very, very bright future. It is a very challenging time right now. I don't want to underestimate how difficult it is. But I think that, with the right policy initiatives and the right direction, this industry can continue to drive rural economies in British Columbia, not just for decades but for centuries to come.

With that, I would move that we adjourn debate. I believe the House Leader will follow from there.

Hon. P. Bell moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Christensen: My apologies to the Opposition House Leader and the opposition Finance critic because they had expected this next thing to be called a little bit earlier, and that certainly was my mistake.

I am pleased to call the Supply Act (No. 1), 2009, for second reading.

Second Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2009

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 5 be read a second time now.

Interim supply is required because existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2009. This supply bill is in the general form of previous interim supply bills. The first section of Bill 5 requests approval for 5/12 of the voted expenses, as presented in the 2009-2010 estimates, in order to provide for continuation of the general programs of the government.

The five-month period is longer than the usual two months in order to accommodate the delay in debating and passing the 2009-2010 estimates as a result of the pending election. The extra period of interim supply follows the precedents set in previous election years.

The second section requests approval for two-thirds of the financing transaction requirements set out in schedules C and E of the 2009-2010 estimates. This is the usual historical practice and accommodates government requirements while debate on voted appropriations is completed.

[1035]

The third section requests approval for all of the disbursements related to revenue collected for and transferred to other entities, which appear in schedule F of the 2009-10 estimates. This, too, is historical practice, as there is no impact on the surplus, borrowing or debt from these particular transactions.

I now will allow the Finance critic to respond.

B. Ralston: I think it's probably worth explaining to those members of the public who may be watching exactly what the government is intending to do with this bill. Ordinarily, a budget debate is required, and there is detailed discussion and debate by ministry of ministerial estimates. That takes place over a series of days in the parliamentary session.

What is being proposed here by advancing interim supply at this stage is…. Even though the present financial year has not expired — it ends at the end of March of this year — the government is seeking approval to continue to spend for five months on the estimates that are tabled. But there will be no debate on those. That seems clear at this point.

Ordinarily, interim supply is a matter that's…. A bill is tabled and asks for, typically, two months' approval while the debate of the budget and the estimates goes on. It seems clear to me, at this point, that the government doesn't intend to advance the debate of its budget to the stage where individual ministerial estimates are debated. So should this bill pass, for five months the government will be able to spend on the priorities set out in the budget without any debate here of those estimates ministry by ministry.

When reviewing the whole concept of interim supply in the parliamentary system, it's significant that when one reflects back on the very roots of parliament, the premise on which parliament was established was that the taking of taxes from the citizens was that…. It began back in 1295. The Parliament declared that what touches all should be approved by all.

That was the premise of the foundation of the British parliamentary system. The premise was that if the citizens were to be taxed, they had a right to bring their grievances before the parliament and have those addressed and answered prior to the government being granted the
[ Page 14241 ]
right to spend. That was an important control on the sovereign. Prior to that, the unelected king had control of the purse strings, of funds, and had the right to spend without citizens being able to advance their grievances.

What's happening here in this approach is that for five months the government will continue to spend without any discussion of the detailed estimates of individual departments.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules says: "Interim supply provides the government with money to meet its obligations during the time before the main estimates are approved." We actually have, at this stage, several weeks — three weeks, at least — prior to the end of the fiscal year in order to debate the budget that was tabled for the 2009-2010 year.

Yet at this stage, the government has introduced a motion for interim supply to extend its right to spend beyond March 31. So it doesn't seem as though the time that we have remaining here, and even in this fiscal year, is going to be put to the good use of debating the estimates that have been put forward as part of the budget.

Beauchesne also goes on to say: "Interim supply is normally requested in the first supply period for the three months of the new fiscal year for all departments of government."

[1040]

As I said, two months or three months…. That's simply to allow the government to continue to operate during the period that the main estimates of the government are under debate.

Beauchesne goes on to say: "In addition, interim supply is requested for other items in the estimates, depending on the need in each case. The main estimates and the bill based thereon are not disposed of until the last allotted day for the supply period ending June 30."

So generally, what it means is that supply should ordinarily not go beyond the three months of the following fiscal year. Yet this bill seeks to extend supply for five months.

In addition, there are some other limitations which I'm not sure that the public is aware of — because, as we're aware, we're heading into an election campaign. The interim supply does not grant the government the right to spend on new programs. It only applies to those programs which are set out in the main estimates.

I'm not sure that the government is aware of that or is prepared to acknowledge that, but it only provides for the continuation of the spending that's set out in the main estimates. It cannot be used to fund new programs. Any such expenditure would be, according to Beauchesne and other parliamentary authorities, not lawful.

If the government goes out and makes election commitments for new spending on a budget that's not yet legal and has not been passed, they would be in breach of parliamentary tradition and, according to Beauchesne, not acting lawfully.

It does seem to me that at this stage it is premature, at the very least, for the government to be tabling this bill and seeking approval here in the Legislature. There is opportunity to continue. There's time to, even in the very truncated system that was established last session for debating estimates, where the government took the estimates process, and…. Ordinarily, there was…. In previous years and in previous governments, there's been unlimited time. Certainly, members opposite who sat in opposition in years gone by took full advantage of that and would debate estimates well into June or July of the parliamentary calendar.

What took place last session was that the ability to debate estimates was reduced and time limited. Yet even within that more reduced calendar, there is some opportunity afforded to members of the opposition to question individual ministers upon their spending plans.

As the parliamentary precedent establishes — and indeed, the purpose for parliamentary government in the British Commonwealth, as it's been transmitted and built upon around the world — there would be the right to ask individual ministers to present the grievances of citizens and ask that the government be accountable to the citizens prior to granting expenditure of interim supply.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The parliamentary rules and procedures book of this assembly says:

"When all estimates that have not been passed by the Legislative Assembly before the end of the fiscal year" — which is March 31 — "an interim supply bill is introduced in the assembly in order for the government to meet its financial commitments. This bill grants a proportion of the budget as a temporary measure until full estimates have been approved. The passage of an interim supply bill does not preclude members of the Legislative Assembly from questioning any part of the estimates or from moving motions to reduce any specific vote. There may be one or more interim supply acts."

[1045]

It's clear that the government, despite the fanfare about its budget that we heard a couple of weeks ago, is reluctant to debate that budget in the estimates forum where individual members can ask questions of individual cabinet ministers who rely on advice from their departmental officials. It's therefore a procedure whereby it's possible to get at what the real spending plans are and, also, to bring forward grievances and deficiencies in the government's approach. It's clear that the government doesn't intend to do that here.

The government doesn't really want to have anything other than a very surface debate of the budget. They'd rather deal with the budget outside the assembly and through the resources afforded to them as government through the public affairs bureau, through individual members of the public affairs bureau who want to communicate a rather distorted message about the government's priorities in its budget rather than come here to the assembly and debate in the Legislative Assembly, through the estimates process, the details of the budget.
[ Page 14242 ]

They're, I think, fearful that that method is not one that they can control and that individual ministers, strong or weak, may not be able to sustain that kind of questioning. So the plan is to remove those ministers and those individual departmental budgets from that kind of scrutiny and to push it out into a broader arena, where the government hopes to be able to run the agenda using the public resources of the public affairs bureau — all 228 employees dedicated solely to managing the government's message and its communications — rather than debating the budget here in the Legislative Assembly.

The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act was something that the government likes to discuss from time to time and point to as a measure. Indeed, we've heard some rhetorical flourishes added to speeches by members of the government, whether they're backbenchers or not, about the openness and the accountability of the budget process. That's what the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act would suggest.

Even though there is in the legislation a fixed date for the budget, the main estimates have to be passed no later than 90 days after the appointment of the executive council following an election. The return of the writ — my calculation would be June 8; I'm not sure if that's accurate — means the main estimates would have to be fully passed by September 8. So I'm not sure, given the calculation that the minister appears to have made by bringing forward a request for five months, whether that has been taken into account.

Some of the high-flown language of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act is, in my view, not being adhered to in spirit by this process, because basically, the government gets the right to take five months of spending and spend it more or less any way they choose, providing it conforms with the broad outlines of the main estimates.

They can spend it in areas that they choose to. They can spend it in towns that they think are important electorally. They can spend it in any way they want. There's no scrutiny in the ordinary sense for that period. Very limited scrutiny is available here, and relatively little will be afforded to the Legislature in the immediate future, given that this introduction of interim supply will likely shut down further debate on the budget.

[1050]

Indeed, we had the very clear and dramatic, I think symbolic, switch that took place here this morning, although it was a mistake confessed by the Government House Leader that we began on budget debate and terminated immediately after one speech from a government cabinet minister and moved to interim supply.

Clearly that, I think, symbolizes where the government wants to be. It doesn't really want to debate its budget. It wants to debate this interim supply bill, to give itself carte blanche to spend for five months, to avoid the scrutiny that comes in estimates debate and spend the money wherever it chooses, however it chooses, throughout the province, in advance of an election.

The priorities that were set out in the budget — I think it would be clear — require further scrutiny. Indeed, many of the premises that the budget is based on and the five months of spending that this bill would seek to authorize require further scrutiny.

In the previous five months prior to the tabling of the budget, the fiscal landscape of the province and, indeed, of most of the western economies has completely changed, and it's not difficult to imagine that the fiscal landscape will continue to change during that period of time. Yet the five months of spending that the minister seeks to have authorized will be authorized without that opportunity to explore whether it really does conform to a changed economic environment.

The priorities and the spending that the government chooses to do in the run-up to the election won't be able to be debated here in this chamber should this interim supply motion pass.

The budget itself is one that follows in a pattern set by this government. The government, in the past, has brought in what they called a children's budget. They said they were going to increase protection for children, increase the number of social workers. But if you look at the budgetary estimates that were tabled and the three-year service plans, indeed, the government is planning to make cuts in that particular ministry, a complete repudiation of their promises that they set out and, indeed, a repudiation of the report of Mr. Hughes, a respected former judge, who investigated the impact of budgetary cuts following 2002 and made a series of recommendations that were….

The government claimed they were going to follow and implement every single recommendation, yet the budget that's authorized and the spending that's authorized in the budget for the next five months — the next 5/12 of the calendar year, to use the language of the bill — does not address those priorities in a way that's consistent with what Mr. Hughes had to say.

Indeed, Ms. Turpel-Lafond has expressed her concern about the budget and the budgetary estimates that were tabled with the budget in February, and the spending that's set out in the interim supply bill over the next five months is consistent with the areas that she has expressed her concern about.

[1055]

Similarly, the government, in this interim supply bill, is seeking to spend a portion of the budget allocated for the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations. It foresees, though, in its budget and service plan, extending out over three years, cuts to the budget by 20 percent and a reduction in the budget for negotiations.

If this interim supply bill were not before the House and we were proceeding to individual ministerial estimates, the minister responsible for that particular
[ Page 14243 ]
ministry would be obliged to stand up in estimates and explain that in a very detailed way, possibly in a format which gives the opposition more scope, and certainly the minister more scope, to explain and expand upon his answers rather than simply giving the Minister of Finance the authority to spend over the next five months with those estimates unexamined and that debate not even beginning to take place.

There are obviously other areas of the budget. This interim supply bill would authorize continued spending in health. Health is understandably a major preoccupation of all citizens of the province, and there are real questions about the direction and policies underlying the spending that's being authorized. There was some debate here recently in supplemental estimates, but that was only a debate about the previous budget year.

The real question is the government's priorities and spending plans for the Ministry of Health in the five months to come and, indeed, in the seven months after that. This bill, if it passes, doesn't afford an opportunity to have that kind of scrutiny and that kind of detailed debate.

It's clear that we've dropped from second to seventh in per-capita health spending. There is a real public issue about health care conditions for seniors. We on this side of the House….

Deputy Speaker: Member, could I just remind you, please, to confine your remarks to the general provisions of the act.

B. Ralston: Well, I hope I am, and I thank you for that caution, Madam Speaker. I'll bear that in mind. I'm addressing the expenditure that this act would seek to authorize — of spending 5/12 of the budget year, five months' spending, on the Ministry of Health.

The importance of health continues during that five months, and the issues that are raised publicly and have been raised by the opposition in the course of debate in question period really will not be able to be addressed should this interim supply bill pass. It simply gives the government a carte blanche to continue to spend without the kind of public scrutiny that we think is important and, indeed, consistent with the principles of parliamentary democracy.

It may be that the minister doesn't feel comfortable in defending the budget in a detailed way, that his ministers don't feel comfortable in defending the budget in a detailed way. They'd rather get out on the campaign trail and avoid being here and answering what they regard as impertinent questions from members of the opposition, avoid questions that we ask on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia. But they seem to want to push this bill through and avoid that kind of detailed debate.

[1100]

There's no doubt that the estimates are also based upon estimates of revenue. It's very clear that increasingly the economic comment that comes to the public forum is that some of the assumptions on which the minister has based his budget certainly ought to be changed. That certainly seems to be the view of some — and indeed, members of the minister's own forecast council.

That group of 12 economists asked to meet with him in early February prior to the tabling of the budget, but the minister refused to meet with them. Indeed, it appears that certainly one economist, the economist from 1 Credit Union, has added some further commentary to the debate about the direction that the economy in British Columbia is taking.

I say this is important because the estimates that the minister seeks approval for are based also on an estimated revenue stream. If those assumptions are wrong or need to be changed, that's an important part of considering whether or not interim supply should pass. What interim supply allows is expenditure at the rate and according with the budget that may be based on assumptions which ought to be changed.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

It's a process that certainly citizens would benefit and, I think, ultimately, a better government would result if the minister was prepared to submit himself and his officials to that kind of scrutiny.

By putting forward interim supply before the chamber and avoiding that kind of detailed ministerial debate in estimates…. The citizens are badly served by that because those new assumptions can't be debated in a forum in which there is some opportunity to understand what the government's responses might be to that and what changes they might be willing to make, given adjusting revenue projections, in spending estimates as well.

Given the nature of this bill…. This bill simply allows the government to barrel ahead on the estimates as tabled. It doesn't require any adjustment of the assumptions underlying the budget and simply permits the government to spend in a way that's really essentially unscrutinized. It clearly has a place in parliamentary tradition as a very brief interim measure. It's called interim supply on the assumption that the main estimates would be debated while interim supply continues.

That's why it is ordinarily for a very brief period of two months. Yet in this particular case, five months is being sought — almost half the fiscal year. It involves literally billions and billions of dollars of spending that doesn't have the kind of parliamentary scrutiny that spending, in the parliamentary tradition, should have.

The minister doesn't really offer an explanation of why he's introducing it at this time, given that the election that is scheduled isn't until May. There are a number of potential sitting weeks here in this Legislature left. The opposition is expecting and willing to be here to provide that kind of scrutiny, to debate those estimates department
[ Page 14244 ]
by department. Indeed, opposition critics are anxious to undertake that task.

Yet this particular piece of legislation would just truncate that process, sweep it away, allow the minister to turn on the spending taps and head out on the campaign trail without the kind of scrutiny of the budget that is traditional and, indeed, is the primary function of parliaments throughout the British parliamentary system.

[1105]

It's control of supply, the control of government spending. Governments come before the parliament to seek approval of that. They ordinarily, and in the parliamentary tradition, don't come before the assembly to seek a rubber stamp to turn on the spending taps for a number of months without expecting some kind of scrutiny. Yet that's what's proposed here, and in a way that is not consistent with parliamentary tradition at all.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I assume you are the designated speaker.

B. Ralston: Yes. I'll continue for a little while longer, I think.

The minister was very brief in his comments in introducing this. I don't think that he really expects debate on this. I don't think he really welcomes debate. He's, I think, merely following the train of thought that would have this matter resolved quickly to the government's satisfaction — turn on the spending taps, avoid scrutiny, leave the debate of the budget to the public affairs bureau and head out on the campaign trail.

That's certainly not what parliamentary tradition is or was all about. And that's, in my view, a stretching of the concept of interim supply in a way that is not consistent with parliamentary tradition. I don't expect that there will be a justification offered by the minister other than to just say: "The election's coming, and it's necessary for us to keep spending so we can get out of here."

But I think it's consistent with the approach of this government to this place that they're not anxious to stay here and debate the main estimates. They're not anxious to withstand that kind of individual scrutiny. For example, in the Minister of Finance's own ministry, he's responsible for the B.C. Investment Management Corporation. B.C. Investment Management Corporation manages the public pension funds, for example.

While the interim supply permits B.C. Investment Management Corporation to continue operating, there are real concerns — and legitimate inquiries, I think — about the pension funds that are administered by B.C. Investment Management. In the recent market turbulence some of those funds have not sustained their value in the way that the managers might wish.

I think, were there to be debate at estimates rather than this truncated procedure through interim supply, those kinds of questions would come forward, and the minister would, I think — maybe reluctantly, maybe enthusiastically; I don't know — want to debate and answer questions about B.C. Investment Management Corporation and the public pension funds that it manages.

Yet this interim supply bill simply flows the funds to that agency as it does to others, and no scrutiny — of its operations, its investment management policy, its returns on investment, its implication for pension holders and pension members of the fund — is permitted.

There is a review of pension legislation that's ongoing in the budget, which the interim supply will fund 5/12 of. There is a proposal that a new public pension plan be created.

[1110]

Once again, given that this interim supply bill is before the Legislature, the opportunity to have that debate, to have those questions with the minister about the implications of the British Columbia–Alberta review of pension standards won't be possible. The business will continue as usual. The funds will flow to that agency, and that kind of debate won't be able to take place.

Certainly at a time, as the minister said in his budget speech, when people are concerned about the world economy and how it impacts their jobs, their homes, their families and their retirement plans, those kinds of discussions would be important. But this interim supply bill, because it simply permits spending for five months without any scrutiny, without…. Detailed debate of the main estimates prior to an election won't take place. When we head into the election, the minister, obviously, wants to avoid discussion, that kind of debate of those kinds of questions prior to an election.

One can well imagine why he is reluctant to offer that opportunity to have that discussion. He has a view that's fashioned by the public affairs bureau and communicated to the public — the 228 people in the public affairs bureau hired by the government and paid by the government to spread the government's message and also, as we've seen in recent days, to devote themselves in a very dedicated way to attacking members of the opposition and their views on topics of the day and on policy matters.

This interim supply bill will continue the funds flowing to the public affairs bureau for five months. If it's approved, there won't be an opportunity to ask the minister to explain and justify the public expenditure that's spent on the public affairs bureau.

Interim supply means that there's…. And I'm not going to debate an individual line item. I'm mindful of the direction that's been given to me. In general, the funds that are allocated to the Ministry of Finance will continue to flow to that ministry. The public affairs bureau is part of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, so that whole area of government operation, which in the main estimates would be the subject of some scrutiny, some questions of the minister, won't be examined.
[ Page 14245 ]

That budget, which is a very substantial one, is being approved for five months and won't be the subject of any kind of scrutiny here in this chamber. There are other areas of the jurisdiction of the minister.

I wonder if I might pause. There seems to be a lot of chatter in the chamber. I appreciate this may not be the most gripping speech, but I think it's an important exposition of where the government is heading with this particular bill. So while I don't necessarily expect rapt attention from every member, I think some decorum would be helpful.

Other areas in the jurisdiction of the minister, I think, were raised by the member for Nelson-Creston yesterday. He spoke of the Creston Valley wildlife reserve, just to give an example. Those are the kinds of questions that in main estimates the member would be able to pursue on behalf of his constituents, and the minister would be obliged — I think, fairly — to seek some guidance from his officials and provide some responses to the member.

[1115]

That's certainly completely consistent with the parliamentary tradition, which I spoke of at the outset, of grievance before supply. In other words, individual members of the Legislative Assembly come before the assembly with a grievance presented to the minister. That issue is at least addressed, if not resolved, prior to supply being voted. This procedure of interim supply violates that very basic precept and doesn't permit that kind of debate.

So whether it's the pension standards and the administration of public pensions here in British Columbia, which is a very important area…. Because this interim supply bill is before the House, we won't have that debate in estimates.

In supplementary estimates, there was a debate about an aspect of the public pension plan, which was the disability fund. The minister who was responding to the questions had received an actuarial valuation of that fund, yet was not prepared to table it in debate. There was a report on the fund, the operation. The annual report relating to that fund was only tabled here in the Legislature after the debate on supplementary estimates had taken place.

So the opportunity to ask in an informed way, on behalf of those people who receive that pension, what was taking place in that pension fund was not possible due to the manoeuvring of the minister in question. That would be an issue that would be pursued in main estimates, yet this interim supply bill doesn't permit that opportunity.

So those individual plan members of that particular plan don't have the opportunity to have their questions answered or at least asked — perhaps would be a fair way to put it — by a Member of the Legislative Assembly on their behalf, the operation of the plan discussed and their concerns set at rest, because the interim supply bill doesn't permit that kind of discussion. These are examples which, in my view, fly in the face of parliamentary tradition.

The procedure in the House of Commons on interim supply is very similar. The concurrence and the estimates are in interim supply. I'm reading from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and I do that just to speak to the parliamentary principles that underlie interim supply.

"The concurrence in the estimates or in interim supply is an order of the House to bring in an appropriation bill or bills giving effect to the spending authority…of the House as approved. Once adopted, the legislation will authorize the government to withdraw from the consolidated revenue fund amounts up to but not exceeding the amounts set out in the estimates for the purposes specified in the votes. Supply bills must be based on the estimates or interim supply as concurred in by the House."

What's clear in the parliamentary tradition is that this is a method by which the Legislative Assembly controls the spending by the government, and the Legislative Assembly is the final arbiter of the authority of the government to spend. The government can't decide on its own to spend without the authority of the Legislature.

Here, though, by the mechanism of this interim supply bill extending out for some five months, the scrutiny that ordinarily would apply in the case of the control of supply, where the Legislature is sovereign on these matters, doesn't really apply, and it's a concern that's been expressed in parliament, as well, about interim supply.

[1120]

The length of time is ordinarily and traditionally very relatively brief while the debate of the main estimates is going on. Indeed, there were debates or rulings by the Speaker of the House of Commons in Ottawa that an appropriation act gives authority only for a single year and is therefore not appropriate for expenditure which is meant to continue for a longer period or indefinitely.

The control of supply by the Legislative Assembly, whether it's the House of Commons or here in this assembly, is something that in parliamentary tradition is taken very seriously and is indeed the very essence of parliamentary debate.

My concern is that there seems to be no necessity for this bill to come now, so early in the month of March, when there are many weeks of possible legislative debate available to us. We are nowhere near the end of the fiscal year. It seems to, and clearly does, violate those parliamentary traditions that have been spoken of for many years, indeed many centuries.

To some extent this is a mockery of the spirit of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, because despite the language that's set out in that act, we aren't going to be able to engage in the kind of detailed debate that's required in order that citizens understand what's at stake in the spending plans of the government and what opportunity they have to have their concerns addressed by the Legislative Assembly.

That's no small thing. It may sometimes be dismissed by some as unimportant or as simply complaints, but
[ Page 14246 ]
people express their concern about what spending is being undertaken. Most citizens, in my experience, have a strong view of what government priorities should be and whether money is being wasted or not. They entrust to us the responsibility of making sure that the spending that's undertaken on behalf of them as citizens of the province is justified and scrutinized. I think that's expected and understood.

Yet what this interim supply bill does is simply avoid that kind of scrutiny and gives the government a blank cheque to spend on its estimates that it's set out in the budget without that kind of debate. I'm sure many ministers on the other side are relieved and welcome the fact that they don't have to face estimates debate.

Anecdotally, I think we've all heard from ministers that the preparation for estimates by the department and by the minister is a very time-consuming process that requires a great deal of effort in order for the minister to fully understand the scope of the spending proposed in his ministry and to review and canvass the anticipated questions that might come.

The ability to understand, explain and justify the spending choices of the government in each individual ministry is very much the essence of what we do here and, I think, some of the best public service and the best value for money in the sense of people getting a return on the money that is spent to run the Legislative Assembly.

[1125]

That very process assists people in understanding what the spending priorities of the government are, where they've made mistakes, where they've wasted money, where they've been blind to public concerns and, I think, in the long run enables government, if it listens, to set itself on the right course and to respond to concerns of citizens. That's the debate that takes place in the main estimates, but the interim supply bill doesn't permit that kind of discussion.

This particular bill is a very, very brief one, simply three clauses. Pardon me, I think there's one minor one called "Commencement" over the page. It's very brief. Just to give you a sense of the brevity of the bill, it's contained on one page — three paragraphs. "Voted expenses appropriation," "Voted financing transactions appropriation," "Voted revenue transfers appropriation," and then a final section entitled "Commencement."

That authorizes the spending in paragraph 1 of $13.39 billion. So a single paragraph in this bill, one paragraph — should it pass — will authorize the spending of $13.39 billion. The second paragraph authorizes the expenditure of the sum of $659.7 million towards capital expenditures. So $13.39 billion and $659 million in capital expenditures.

Then there's a third section that speaks of "Voted revenue transfers," $1,153,500,000. Ordinarily, given the magnitude of those numbers, one would expect that there would be further debate than this statute permits.

What this Supply Act does, if it passes, is authorize spending of that magnitude exactly and no more. But it is a substantial sum of money by, I think, anyone's standard. We don't have the kind of debate and scrutiny of the elements that compose that spending that really are consistent with the parliamentary tradition.

It seems to me that given these sums of money…. And I've chosen to mention the specific sums of money just to give those who might be interested a sense of the magnitude of the spending that's being proposed here. This is not — if I can put it — the equivalent of borrowing a hundred bucks from a friend to make it to payday. This is a substantial part of the government's spending plans for the next fiscal year that are being put here before the Assembly in this very truncated way and simply being asked for a rubber stamp.

The rules of procedure that I'm endeavouring to follow, given the direction of the Speaker, don't really permit me to delve into even individual line items here in this debate except for illustrative purposes to illustrate the main point. I think it's unfair and frustrating to members of the opposition that this interim supply bill is here before this assembly with so much time left in the schedule to have the fuller debate that would ordinarily be expected.

[1130]

The sum of $13.39 million is obviously a substantial sum. That will all go to pay the wages of public servants and to continue the ordinary government operations. In that sense, it's not objectionable, but indeed, to be supported in that sense.

What it does do is give the government, within the scope of that $13.39 billion, as it approaches the election, the opportunity to spend within very broad parameters where it chooses in the province, whether it chooses to spend in Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Fernie, Cranbrook, Campbell River, Zeballos, Port Renfrew, Hope or Surrey.

All these opportunities are open to the government without the kind of scrutiny that ordinarily would apply to the government's spending plans. The first paragraph is the operating budget, and the other part is the capital part of the budget, and that authorizes the government to spend, for five months, that portion of its capital budget that is set out.

Obviously, in this particular economic time, when infrastructure is a real concern, governments are looking to infrastructure spending to stimulate the economy in a way that it requires, given that a recession is underway. Even other provinces are undertaking that, other jurisdictions — whether it's the infrastructure stimulus package that just passed or is being debated in the American Congress.

This section 2 of the bill authorizes the government, without the same kind of debate and scrutiny that we would ordinarily expect, to spend $659 million towards its capital expenditures, which are set out in the main
[ Page 14247 ]
estimates — with no opportunity in this debate or in the main estimates to look at those projects.

Certainly, I know that individual members of council — city councils, mayors — have their own understanding and their own schedule and list of priorities that they wish to see funded in their jurisdictions. This format doesn't offer that opportunity.

For example, the Union of B.C. Municipalities has asked their members to compile a list of proposed infrastructure spending within their jurisdictions, and some of the capital expenditure that's set out in paragraph 2 of this bill will be matching funding. It will be funding where the government will look to the federal government to partner with them on certain infrastructure projects. They will look to municipal governments and regional districts to partner with them.

This format doesn't permit any discussion of those infrastructure plans. Simply, it is a carte blanche, a consent, a permit to the government to spend on its capital spending priorities without any scrutiny as to whether there are projects on there that might not deserve the priority they've got, that the government has got there for its own political timetable.

There are other projects which have maybe been neglected which are worthy, which deserve to be moved up or funded in that list of capital expenditures. Certainly, this format doesn't allow for any kind of discussion.

[1135]

So the vote in section 2, if it passes, simply refers to capital expenditures that are set out in a schedule of the main estimates in the next fiscal year. There's no discussion possible of those items individually. Given the important topic of infrastructure and given the importance of capital spending — both in economic theory and practical reality — at this time in a recession, that kind of discussion ought to take place. We ought to be permitted to have that kind of discussion here in this Legislative Assembly. I think most citizens would expect that.

I know that mayors and councils, whether it's the mayor and the council of my colleague from Delta North…. I know he made a speech just the other day about the priorities that Delta has for its infrastructure, for services to citizens in its community. I just use that as an example of the kind of infrastructure spending that I think is the subject of public debate.

I know that in my home community of Surrey, the mayor of Surrey, on behalf of her council, has put forward a list of infrastructure projects that she deems worthy and would like to see funded, and I would welcome that opportunity to debate that very extensive list.

Regrettably, this format that we're being provided with here in interim supply, the rules that govern this place and the direction that I've received from the Speaker — and, of course, am adhering to — don't permit that kind of discussion. As much as I might want to advocate on behalf of the list of priorities that has been set forward by the mayor of Surrey, I'm not able to do that.

There are certainly other communities. I see other members in the assembly, whether it is Abbotsford in the Fraser Valley, another very fast-growing community…. Similarly, there are infrastructure requests and requirements that they might want to see accommodated. On their list would be, perhaps, a new courthouse, for example, which has been on the list there for some time.

This section 2, just by authorizing a bald sum of $659 million, doesn't permit that kind of debate, doesn't permit that kind of scrutiny of individual proposals and doesn't permit a fulsome discussion of where those valuable infrastructure dollars are going to be spent.

In effect, it leaves it to the government immediately before an election to get the authority — if this bill passes, and I fully expect that it will at some point — to spend $659 million and, without really having to answer a lot of questions, to put together some news releases by those 228 people in the public affairs bureau and head out on the campaign trail.

I think one might reasonably expect that we'll see infrastructure announcements that will be funded by this $659 million — public money on the government's priorities, not on the people's priorities. It's simply on the government's priorities. We won't have the opportunity to debate that.

It is really a failing of this process that the government is choosing to adopt at this point, which really means that we won't have that debate on infrastructure spending. I know that whether you look to the Business Council of B.C. or the B.C. Construction Association or the Central 1 Credit Union, all of the, I think, significant and informed economic comment is that infrastructure is one of the avenues to begin to turn the tide of the downturn in the economy.

[1140]

Given that the last boom was construction-led in many respects, there is a body of construction expertise and construction labourers who are now increasingly being laid off as projects come to an end and who are looking for work and wanting work. It's important to get those infrastructure projects up and running.

That's indeed a concern that has been expressed by members of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, as they have their own views, and representations have been made about how this $659 million, set out in section 2 of this Supply Act, will be spent. It's something people are looking for and expecting that the government will be announcing.

Regrettably, there won't be the kind of…. Apparently, there's an unwillingness on the part of the government to have the debate to shape those priorities, to hear from communities across the province how their needs might be addressed, how the needs of their citizens might be addressed in deciding which infrastructure project should go ahead or not.
[ Page 14248 ]

Certainly, that's a debate we won't be able to have here, as much as we might wish to do that. It's regrettable that we won't have that debate in this chamber, given the way in which this bill is structured.

There are other areas that I wish to address, as I address this bill. I want to turn again to the very definition of interim supply. As Beauchesne has said — and Beauchesne is considered to be one of the authoritative texts on parliamentary procedure — it's normally requested in the first supply period for a brief period while the discussion of the main estimates takes place.

So it's clear from a review of the texts on the parliamentary tradition that use of interim supply is meant to be very restricted, to be used sparingly, and that debate on the main estimates is the preferred method for approval of supply. It's only to be used sparingly and exceptionally and, as the name suggests, on an interim basis only. It's not meant to substitute for the debate on the main estimates and the approval in the normal process.

So it is an unusual process and one that's to be used sparingly. Yet with this government, it has become…. The minister alluded to this in his remarks, briefly, that by adopting this procedure in 2005, prior to the election, however much it violated parliamentary tradition then, it's now…. He points to that as constituting a precedent for proceeding in that way this time.

So if you proceed in one way, in a way that's not consistent with the parliamentary traditions, at one point…. It seems to me to be a rather defective argument, then, to use that to bootstrap yourself forward and call upon that flawed procedure to justify using the same flawed procedure again. But that is, in essence, what the minister said in his comments opening debate, very briefly.

[1145]

I suppose the only difference between this procedure and the debate in 2005 is that, as I recall — I may be mistaken — the interim supply bill in 2005 asked for six months' approval, 6/12 of the year, as opposed to what is being asked for here, five months.

I'm not sure, and the minister didn't explain, why that particular choice was made of five rather than six when six was made in 2005, because he did refer to the parliamentary precedent that was set in previous elections. I take it by that he's referring to 2005, given that that was the manner in which the government of the day proceeded, and he was a member of that government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Perhaps one does not want to make too much of the difference of a month, but that's the justification that the minister has offered for a very important aspect of Bill 5 — the length of time that it continues. It continues only for five months rather than six. I'm not sure quite why that is. But again, because the format here doesn't really offer a lot of opportunity for a give-and-take and for the minister to be able to respond, perhaps in remarks that he might make at the conclusion of this debate, we might expect that he will want to explain that choice.

It doesn't seem to have much…. Certainly, in what he said here today, he didn't justify that difference in any detail, if I'm right about the difference. I think it would be perhaps interesting to hear his point of view, given that even at the rate that we're speaking, a difference of a month — given that we're authorizing, should this bill pass, from the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $13.39 billion…. Even a further month amounts to billions of dollars, so it's not clear why that choice would have been made. I'd ask the minister to consider explaining that.

What this will mean, if this should pass, is that an important part of the parliamentary tradition, as we head into an election…. I'm not sure that the government is aware of this, but I mentioned this earlier. As we approach an election, there is a tendency for the government to refer to its budget in the public discourse and, I suppose, look to the fact that they've passed interim supply to feel comforted that they're entitled to continue to spend money. But the rules are fairly clear in Beauchesne and other parliamentary authorities that interim supply doesn't authorize any new spending.

What it authorizes, should it pass in this form, is spending on the estimates as they're put forward before the House. It doesn't authorize new spending. I'm not sure the government is aware of that.

[1150]

If the government or members of the government were to offer — in the course of debate or in the course of public representations after we leave this place, in the course of an election campaign — new spending that's not included in the budget, there's no authority for that. It would be spending that would not have parliamentary approval and, therefore, would not be lawful. So I'm not sure that that's something the government is aware of when they bring this forward.

It's clear that the real debate on the budget is something that the government seeks to avoid. There are discussions, and these aren't included in the estimates that are put forward, but certainly there is a paper circulated by the head of the public service about just looking at those expenditures that might take place over the next five months that this act seeks to authorize.

The proposal that individual members of the public service, government employees, might be willing to take unpaid leave — it's not clear what the state of that proposal is. Obviously, there are some discussions going on at all levels of the government. Whether these estimates, the five months of spending that's being authorized…. This forum really doesn't permit a debate of what impact that would have on government revenue projections and on the expenditure plans of the five months of spending that this bill seeks to authorize.
[ Page 14249 ]

Is the spending that's proposed here predicated on that kind of agreement being reached? Is there some further consideration or reconsideration of government revenue projections?

Again, this format here in interim supply, because the parliamentary requirement is that the debate be very general on the concept and general principles of interim supply, doesn't permit me to enter into that kind of detailed debate as much as I might want to and as much as members of the public and, indeed, public employees and senior public servants might be interested in the answers to those kind of questions — to at least asking the government to respond.

Unfortunately, the format here doesn't permit that. So as topical a public issue as that might be, I'm regretfully not going to be able to enter into it, and this format doesn't really permit that kind of public debate.

B. Ralston moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Christensen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.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