2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th 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, April 7, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 36, Number 6

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2016

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1005]

Tributes

LINDA OSTLER

S. Hamilton: Let me start by saying I do appreciate the prayer that was just bestowed upon us by the member from Surrey-Panorama, because I rise in the House to add one more name to the list of people that have passed from this insidious disease, cancer.

Last night, surrounded by her family and her friends, Linda Ostler quietly slipped away from her pain. She had an infectious smile, and she always had a kind word. My community has lost a good neighbour and volunteer, I’ve lost a good friend and Linda’s family lost a doting grandmother, mother and loving wife to Dennis.

We often, as I’ve said before, stand in this House, and we stand in quiet repose because we’ve lost someone, but Linda enjoyed a wonderful life. She celebrated it, she cherished it, she had wonderful people around her, and she did so much for her community. I know, and I’ve said it before, that when we lose good friends like that, we not only mourn their loss but we celebrate their life.

Could I ask the House in joining me, one more time, to help me celebrate the life of Linda Ostler.

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: I am delighted to introduce two guests from Delta South, Lorraine Bissett and Wendy McKim, who join us today in the public gallery. Both Lorraine and Wendy are part of Delta’s incredible farming community.

Lorraine and her late husband had the distinction of starting Delta’s first winery, which Lorraine successfully managed for many years. The Bissetts also ran a fabulous berry farm on Westham Island, growing five varieties of strawberries, not to mention the raspberries, loganberries, gooseberries, tayberries and on and on.

Wendy and her husband run Ed McKim Farms near Roberts Bank, right near the mouth of our great Fraser River. The McKims also grow a variety of berries and vegetables.

I’m pleased to welcome Lorraine and Wendy to the House today, and I hope the House makes them feel very welcome.

J. Yap: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the precincts 34 grade 11 students from R.A. McMath Secondary School in my riding to the Legislature. They’re accompanied by retired principal Mr. Alex Campbell and two teachers, Mme. Casty and Mme. Beaumaire.

They are also joined by some very special peers who have travelled an even greater distance than Richmond-Steveston. These are students from Ecole Saint-Charles in Brittany, France who are taking part in a ten-day exchange with R.A. McMath Secondary School.

I hope that all of the students enjoy today’s proceedings in the House and their tour of the people’s House. Would members please join me in providing a great welcome to these students.

M. Dalton: In the House today, we have a class from the Sunshine Coast — Steffi, Karina and Jessie Rader. They’re all from the same family. That’s because they go to Heritage Christian, which is an on-line school, and it’s the largest in the province. Some 20,000 students are in on-line schooling in the province.

They’re here with their younger sister Bethany and their mom, Heather, and also with their grandmother, Lily Ventor, who is a great friend of ours, of Marlene and I. She is also with us — my lovely wife, Marlene.

Could the House please make them all welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M215 — DRINKING WATER PROTECTION
(SAFE WATER FOR SCHOOLS)
amendment ACT, 2016

J. Rice presented a bill intituled Drinking Water Protection (Safe Water for Schools) Amendment Act, 2016.

J. Rice: I move that a bill intituled Safe Water for Schools Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

J. Rice: As the foundation of life, safe drinking water is one of our most basic human needs. Young children are especially vulnerable to contaminated water, yet British Columbians were shocked to learn that there are children in British Columbia schools whose drinking water is compromised.

[1010]

The accumulation of even low levels of lead in the body over time has been associated with neurological issues in children, developmental problems with growing fetuses, and heart, kidney and gastrointestinal issues in adults. Exposure to lead in childhood has been associated with low intelligence scores, as well as behaviour
[ Page 11918 ]
disorders such as attention deficit disorder and antisocial behaviour.

The Health Minister has told this House that he discovered highly elevated lead levels in the drinking water of Prince Rupert schools this year through routine testing. The fact is there is no routine testing of lead in children’s drinking water in British Columbia. They discovered the Prince Rupert school issue through a classroom science experiment gone wrong in Kitimat in 2012.

After the discovery of contaminated water in Kitimat schools, the Ministry of Health published an academic paper which called for routine monitoring of drinking water in schools in 2014. The report states: “Given the consequences of lead exposure during childhood and the effects that can occur even at low levels, reducing lead exposure should be a public health priority.”

It is impossible to know if lead in school drinking water is a problem without a systematic province-wide approach to testing. Rather than waiting for a concern to be discovered, the creation of a mandatory system of testing and mitigation would protect our young children while they are developing and are at the most vulnerable to the harmful effects of lead. This bill ensures that water in schools will be regularly tested for contamination.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M215, Drinking Water Protection (Safe Water for Schools) Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M216 — FALL FIXED ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

V. Huntington presented a bill intituled Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2016.

V. Huntington: I move that the bill intituled Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2016, which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

V. Huntington: This is the fifth or sixth time this bill will have been introduced in an effort to move B.C. toward a more transparent democracy.

Every four years, British Columbia goes into an election without passing the budget for the coming fiscal year. Opposition members are unable to properly scrutinize the budget before heading into an election. There is a temptation on both sides to use the budget for partisan campaign purposes.

There can also be significant changes between the pre-election and post-election budgets, either because the initial numbers weren’t credible or because the fiscal climate has changed. The result — and what should be key for this House — is that B.C. voters must go to the polls having an incomplete picture of the state of the provincial finances.

I would like to quote Bob Simpson, the former member for Cariboo North, when he originally introduced this bill as part of our democratic reform agenda: “Spring fixed election dates also mean that every four years government ministries and dependent agencies do not get spending authority until halfway through the fiscal year…. This adds a high and unnecessary degree of uncertainty to the functioning of government….”

The legislation I am reintroducing this session moves B.C.’s fixed election date to October starting now with the 2021 election. Moving the election date will also allow the public accounts to come out in the summer and the first quarterly update to be released in September, a far more constructive approach to dealing with the province’s business.

Restoring confidence in the provincial budgeting process is work this assembly should undertake with professional enthusiasm. Indeed, it falls among the most important work that we can accomplish.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M216, Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

DIABETES AWARENESS AND
YOUNG AND T1 ORGANIZATION

J. Darcy: Today is World Health Day, and the focus this year is on the impact of diabetes.

According to the Canadian Diabetes Association, another Canadian is diagnosed every three minutes. We know that diabetes considerably increases a person’s risk of heart attack, of stroke, of kidney failure, of blindness and amputation. We also know, though, that it’s possible for many people to manage their diabetes and live a full and healthy life with proper treatments and programs and the support of family and peers.

I want to pay tribute today to a dynamic group of young people with diabetes who are making a real difference, and that’s Young and T1.

[1015]

They are young, aged 18 to 35, they have type 1 diabetes, and they are incredibly active in reaching out to offer social and psychological support to their T1 peers,
[ Page 11919 ]
to encourage their type 1 peers to volunteer with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Lookout and Check Your Head, and to engage them in social and physical activity. And by physical activity, we’re not just talking about a walk around the park. We’re talking about rock climbing. We’re talking about marathons and, coming up soon, a 10- to 12-mile mud and obstacle course called Tough Mudder.

They have a lot of fun together, but they are also very serious advocates. Many MLAs met some of them last month when they joined the Canadian Diabetes Association here at the Legislature. Some of them are approaching the age of 25, when they will no longer have PharmaCare coverage for insulin pumps. Some are over 25 and can’t afford to pay the $7,000 to keep the insulin pumps that have made such an enormous difference in their ability to maintain active and healthy lifestyles.

We are no doubt going to be hearing an awful lot more from this group. Congratulations to Young and T1 for all the amazing work they do.

MINING INDUSTRY

J. Tegart: Mining is an important industry in British Columbia, particularly in my riding of Fraser-Nicola. The mining industry produces crucial resources for consumption all over our province. Each British Columbian uses almost 50,000 pounds of mined products each year.

This vital industry also supports job creation, allows for enhancement of infrastructure and provides improved public services in communities throughout the province. Mining is particularly important to the 50 rural communities in our province that rely on it for economic development. The mining industry presently supports about 30,000 jobs throughout B.C. This is up from 15,000 jobs in 2001.

In addition to the growing number of jobs in this industry, salaries are also on the rise. The average salary in the mining industry is currently about $120,000 a year, up from $81,000 in 2001.

Today the province has five operating coal mines and eight operating metal mines, with hundreds of aggregate pits and quarries throughout the province. Two of these mines are located in my riding of Fraser-Nicola. Copper Mountain, near Princeton, employs more than 400 people and has a production value of $290 million. Highland Valley Copper, near Logan Lake, employs more than 1,000 people and has an estimated production value of $890 million. These mines not only provide direct jobs that support thousands of families; they also benefit numerous businesses by putting money back into local economies.

Mining Week is coming up next month from May 8 to May 14. Mining Week is an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the importance of the mining industry to all of British Columbia.

JANUSZ KORCZAK
AND CHILDREN’S RIGHTS

M. Mark: Yesterday UBC concluded its Centennial Sessions “How to Love a Child,” the Janusz Korczak Lecture Series coordinated by the Janusz Korczak Association of Canada and the faculty of education at UBC. The spirit of the series was motivated to deepen our awareness about children’s rights.

Dr. Korczak was known as the father of children’s rights. He was a heroic figure because of the way he lived, the way he died and because of his enduring legacy. Through the ’20s and ’30s, Dr. Korczak focused on the health and welfare of orphans in Poland, leading to the development of the children’s republic.

Initially, the children’s republic cared for vulnerable Polish children from all backgrounds, Jewish, Catholic and others. However, after Nazi Germany occupied Warsaw, they removed the non-Jewish children from Dr. Korczak’s care and segregated the orphans into the Jewish ghetto. The good doctor was offered many opportunities to escape but selflessly refused, saying one never leaves a sick child.

Having been witness to the steady transfer of the Jewish population to the Treblinka death camp, Dr. Korczak was finally forced to join its ranks. On August 6, 1942, refusing to abandon the children under his care, he stoically and heroically led a procession of 200 children from his orphanage into the train headed for Treblinka — the infamous march of the children. No one survived.

[1020]

Dr. Korczak’s profound respect for the rights of children and youth came to inspire the formulation of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, formally ratified by Canada in 1991.

Dr. Korczak was the first person in the history of our culture who fully recognized the human being in a child. He believed the child has a right to love, to an education, to protest injustice and, most importantly, to be heard and to be taken seriously. He believed that the health of our society can be gauged by the well-being of its children.

Korczak wasn’t a champion for status quo; he was a champion for change. I trust that we are all ambassadors of children’s rights and will keep his legacy alive.

FIREFIGHTER PILOT TRAINING
AND FLIGHT SIMULATOR

D. Plecas: Imagine that you’re sitting in the cockpit of a four-engine jet. You’re flying low over the trees, next to the side of a mountain, through smoke-filled skies, with rapidly changing terrain, flames leaping up towards you and heavy winds pushing you around.

It’s pretty dangerous stuff. Then, on top of these already dangerous conditions, you are coordinating with other aircraft flying nearby and supporting the teams working
[ Page 11920 ]
on the ground. Yet as the fire continues to race up the side of the mountain and continues to threaten nearby homes, you are well trained for these complex conditions.

Then you get up and walk out of one of the world’s most sophisticated simulators. You’re a firefighting pilot feeling as though you’ve really been flying over a wildfire. Our firefighting pilots will be training in such a simulator to prepare for the intense environment of fighting wildfires. These simulators can simulate every aspect of flight, and they can simulate flying in a wildfire environment. This is a whole new level of training and experience for pilots before they actually get out into the field.

Until now, B.C. pilots have had to fly to Switzerland to train, but that’s going to change because Abbotsford-based Conair will be bringing a new flight simulator to B.C., in partnership with CAE, so that pilots can receive their training right here in British Columbia. Moreover, since pilots have to train in simulators every year, this new simulator will attract pilots from all over the world. The plan is for this new simulator to be operational next year, in June 2017.

B.C. PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS
BURN FUND AND CENTRE

G. Heyman: Almost 40 years ago firefighters visiting patients in the burn unit saw the critical need and started contributing money for medical equipment and assistance to survivors on their journey to recovery. With this spontaneous generosity as inspiration, the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Burn Fund was conceived. Now, with support from 53 IAFF locals across B.C., the fund’s accomplishments include a gift of $1 million to build the Fire Fighters burn, plastic and trauma unit at VGH; support for other B.C. burn treatment centres; research funding; and money for needed equipment.

On March 18, firefighters from around B.C. converged on Main and 23rd in Vancouver-Fairview for the opening of the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Burn Fund Centre. The centre was years in the planning and fundraising stage, with contributions from governments, the private sector and individuals but no contribution as great as the vision and tenacity of B.C.’s firefighters to see the vision come alive.

This beautiful centre is a home away from home for burn survivors and families undergoing treatment or returning for follow-up. It meets the shortfall in appropriate, affordable accommodation conducive to healing for burn and trauma survivors. Children, adults and families travelling to Vancouver for treatment now have access to eight accommodation suites and common areas for kids’ play, family kitchen and library — even a healing garden. There are also support programs for burn survivors, a youth survivor summer camp and educational resources.

We all feel gratitude for B.C.’s professional firefighters and their union. These men and women risk not only their lives but also physical and mental health dealing with fire, first response and traumatic situations. Yet with the burn fund and now the centre, firefighters show community support that extends well beyond work hours. Let’s all say to B.C.’s firefighters: “Thank you. Job well done. How can we best support you?”

SS Sicamous STERNWHEELER

D. Ashton: Well, she’s still one of the most beautiful ladies in the Okanagan. Despite her age, her stature, curves and grace continually attract recognition and attention.

[1025]

From her birth right in the Okanagan, men have continually doted on her over the past, including to this day, with a few lucky enough in another era to be her partners in adventure for several years at a time. She won’t tell you how old she is, nor her adventures, as she keeps her secrets very well. Both are many. But if you pass by her and turn and look, you might just be able to guess.

I speak of the SS Sicamous, the grand lady of the Okanagan Lake and the largest surviving sternwheeler in British Columbia. She first plied the Okanagan Lake waters in May 1914, at Okanagan Landing in Vernon. She steamed every day from Penticton to Vernon, back and forth, leaving at 6 a.m. and making ten to 12 stops along the way to pick up freight and passengers.

By 1936 her working days were done, ended because of modern advances — mainly, the automobile and the road structure. It made her and her kind obsolete. Today she sits retired. She sat majestically, at first, at Okanagan Landing until 1951, when the city of Penticton acquired her for $1. She’s been a marvellous attraction for the city over many years.

It wasn’t that long ago that the SS Sicamous Restoration Society was created. Their work has been unbelievable in the heritage that they have brought forward from her again. They have done such an incredible job.

This year the society added an outside elevator to make her accessible for the first time to wheelchair visitors. The Sicamous is open to the public and a gracing, stunning hostess to weddings and many other events. She’s the centrepiece of the SS Sicamous Heritage Park in Penticton and one of Penticton’s top tourist attractions. She has never looked better.

I would like to thank the many, many incredibly wonderful, dedicated volunteers that have worked so hard to preserve our marine past in the Okanagan.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR SENIORS CARE FACILITIES

J. Horgan: Yesterday we raised a series of questions in this House about the care of seniors in our province. The response from the minister and the response from
[ Page 11921 ]
the Premier was to recite statistics that were convenient for the government, not convenient for the reality of seniors in 2016.

The seniors advocate, who the Premier took great plaudits for appointing — for herself, in any event — has issued a report that says that 82 percent of the publicly funded facilities in British Columbia are not meeting the basic hours-of-care guidelines that this government created. That strikes me as the only significant statistic that we should talk about in this House today.

My question is to the Premier. Does she believe that the data that has been provided by the seniors advocate, appointed by this government, that demonstrates 82 percent of the facilities in this province that are publicly funded are not meeting basic guidelines…? Is that acceptable to her and her government?

Hon. T. Lake: As Health Minister, it’s particularly significant to rise on World Health Day today and to be reminded by the Conference Board of Canada on social media this morning that the health outcomes in British Columbia are No. 1 in Canada. The health outcomes in British Columbia are No. 3 among OECD jurisdictions.

It is also a great pleasure to stand up when we have 42,000 nurses around the province currently considering a tentative agreement with this government — an agreement that allows them to share in the economic prosperity of this province, the growth in the economic prosperity of this province. That’s something the members opposite would deny to not only the 42,000 nurses around the province but to all 300,000 government employees when they say no to Site C, when they say no to LNG, when they say no to the growth of the economy of British Columbia.

We are going to grow the economy in British Columbia so we can continue to provide the No. 1 health care service in all of Canada.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, you’ve got to give full marks to a government that can say growing the economy is going to make people less concerned about their mom and dad who are in a care home not getting adequate services and being over-prescribed drugs so they’re not a problem.

[1030]

What’s the response of the B.C. Liberal government to the report by their own seniors advocate? It’s for the minister to stand up and say what has been happening in British Columbia for decades. It wasn’t just the B.C. Liberals that discovered health care is important to people. It’s been happening since the 1980s, in the 1990s, at the turn of the century and right up to today.

The issue that we’ve raised in this House all week long…. It’s just so laughable to the Premier. It’s so funny to the Premier.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

J. Horgan: The challenge we have is a complete detachment from reality. People on this side of the House, on that side of the House….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: We’re not proceeding, Members, and the clock will continue to run.

Please continue.

J. Horgan: My question is to the Premier. Lakeview Lodge in her constituency, David Lloyd Jones in her constituency, Three Links Manor in her constituency — not in Vancouver-Fairview, but in Kelowna — are on the list of those that are not getting the funding they need to provide the resources that our seniors deserve.

Before we hear again from the Minister of Health about how grand it is, let’s talk about the people that are desperate for better services in British Columbia. They look to their Premier for leadership on the question. Will you take the advice of your seniors advocate and adequately fund these facilities so that minimum standards can be met, yes or no?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. T. Lake: The first seniors advocate in all of Canada provides us with great recommendations, and we follow many of her recommendations, which is evidenced by legislation before this House. The seniors advocate said we should make assisted living more flexible. Legislation before this house considers that option.

I want to correct the record today. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville yesterday claimed that Vancouver Coastal was not providing information to the office of the seniors advocate around this issue. That is absolutely false. The seniors advocate says that Vancouver Coastal has been nothing but cooperative, as we assemble information that helps people in the province of British Columbia find spaces for their loved ones.

We will continue to work with the office of the seniors advocate and our parliamentary secretary to continue what we have been doing since 2001 — and putting more resources, making more spaces available, for the great seniors who built this province.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a final supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, the seniors advocate was on radio yesterday, and she was asked a direct question: “What’s behind this insufficient staffing?” Her response was: “It’s
[ Page 11922 ]
the funding.” The question came again: “Are you sure?” And she said: “It’s the funding.”

What she also said, hon. Speaker, through you to the minister or the member for Kelowna — west side — was that we’re not meeting basic standards, and there are no consequences. Her recommendation to government is to institute a law that makes minimum standards absolutely imperative and then have consequences if they’re not met.

My question to that guy or her over there: will you bring in law to have consequences for not meeting the needs of seniors in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Lake: We honour our senior citizens with the investments we make. We respect our senior citizens, unlike the member who has no respect for this House or the members in it.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just wait.

We will now proceed. Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: The seniors advocate does important work. My parliamentary secretary will be working with the seniors advocate, with the ministry, with health authorities to address the question of care hours, but the reality is that when that member was chief of staff in the government, the number of public long-term beds fell by 18 percent. The number of patients receiving home support fell by 19 percent.

People were waiting two years to find a place for their loved one. Now, in most cases, it’s under 90 days to be placed into residential care. We have made record investments. We have the best health care system for all British Columbians, and we’ll continue to make those investments. And we will grow the economy despite the opposition and their declarations against everything that grows the economy in British Columbia.

[1035]

MEDICATION OF SENIORS
IN CARE FACILITIES AND
SERVICES FOR CAREGIVERS

S. Robinson: Well, yesterday the Minister of Health said in this House that he takes the seniors advocate’s recommendations seriously. Twelve months ago, the seniors advocate released a report, Placement, Drugs and Therapy: We Can Do Better. The report documents findings of a high-level review of health assessment records of B.C.’s 25,000 seniors in residential care and 29,000 seniors receiving home care.

She noted that while 47 percent of residential care clients are being prescribed antidepressant medication, only 24 percent of these clients have actually been diagnosed with depression. So this data released a year ago — a year ago — tells us that we are continuing to drug our seniors unnecessarily.

Can the minister tell us why he’s continuing to fail these seniors?

Hon. T. Lake: I note that the member didn’t take the opportunity to correct the record from her misstatements yesterday in terms of the cooperation that all health authorities have had with the seniors advocate. The reality is that this has been recognized across Canada. But I would say that every one of those prescriptions is prescribed by a physician, not a critic who doesn’t know the information from which she reads, doesn’t take the opportunity to do research to make sure that the information she has is correct.

We recognize, and we are working with the Doctors of B.C. We are working with care providers and health authorities, with the B.C. Patient Safety Quality Council to ensure that we have appropriate prescription and dispensing of medications to seniors, and we have programs that are working to reduce the unnecessary medication in residential care homes.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam-Maillardville on a supplemental.

S. Robinson: I think it’s important to recognize that this minister knows full well that the reason for overmedicating seniors is that there are not enough hands to support these frail and elderly seniors. They need more people, and this government isn’t providing them.

This past September, over six months ago, the seniors advocate released a report called Caregivers in Distress: More Respite Needed. In that report, the advocate notes that 29 percent of caregivers are in distress — one of the highest reported in this country. She goes on to note that “services such as home support have not kept pace with the increase in the seniors population.”

If the minister really takes the advocate’s recommendation seriously, can he tell us why this government has provided almost $1 billion in tax relief to the province’s wealthiest, while our seniors and their caregivers, the people who have built this province, have to continue to suffer?

Hon. T. Lake: Maybe the member should look to her left and ask her colleague why, as chief of staff, he cut residential care spaces, cut home services.

Everyone has seen the wave of demographics coming at us. That is why we created the office of the seniors advocate. That is why we work with health authorities and the office of the seniors advocate.

We have made record investments in residential care, in assisted living, in group homes around the province. The members opposite know that. They know what the situation was like in the 1990s. They know how much bet-
[ Page 11923 ]
ter it is today. We will continue to improve services for seniors who have built the province of British Columbia.

GUN VIOLENCE IN SURREY

B. Ralston: Yesterday the Premier claimed repeatedly that her government was going to do more to end gun violence in Surrey. Yet on Tuesday, the Minister of Public Safety here in the Legislature, on the same topic, said: “I believe it’s moving in the right direction. However, the Premier said more needs to be done. I think everyone in Surrey agrees more needs to be done.”

My question is to the Solicitor General. What exactly has the Premier instructed him to do?

Hon. M. Morris: I’ve addressed this several times in this House over the last number of days now.

[1040]

I know the families in Surrey are looking for answers. They’re looking to alleviate their fears, and that’s what we’re doing too. We’re working with them and working with the community to do that.

The fears will be alleviated when there are answers. The answers right now are coming through the investigation. I can’t divulge the extent of the investigation that’s going on, the covert and overt activities that are going on in there because it’ll jeopardize the lives and safety of not only the officers but other people around those types of investigations.

I’ve met with the member for Surrey-Newton. I’ve given him a fairly in-depth overview of what’s going on out there. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue where all members of this House need to get together to alleviate the fears in Surrey. I’m more than willing to meet with the other MLAs from Surrey and give them a more in-depth briefing on what’s going on there, but I’m not going to reveal the tactics that the police are using because I don’t want to jeopardize anybody’s safety.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley on a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Everyone understands that the situation in Surrey is a very serious one. Residents, constituents, the whole community is concerned about what’s happening there.

I think what the Solicitor General is missing is that the status quo model of policing clearly isn’t working. The government’s own report Getting Serious About Crime Reduction, chaired by the member for Abbotsford South, called for police “to prioritize information-led, intelligence-led, proactive, problem-solving, offender-focused crime reduction in partnership with other provincial and community-level service providers.”

The community of Abbotsford dramatically reduced gang activity in its city by using this approach. Why won’t the minister follow the advice of a member of his own caucus and a government report and direct that this approach be used in Surrey?

Hon. M. Morris: I’ve extended the offer, and I extend it again. The members from Surrey are more than welcome to make an appointment in my office, and I’ll give them an in-depth briefing to make them fully understand exactly what’s going on out there.

ECOLE ROSE-DES-VENTS COURT CASE

A. Weaver: It’s far too long now since parents at l’Ecole Rose-des-vents have been trying to get this government to address their Charter rights to have their children receive a comparable public education in French.

For 15 years now, primary school students have faced unacceptable conditions — a school with a capacity of 199 teaching 357 students, in the 2015-16 school year, classrooms without windows and inadequate washroom facilities, all as part of sharing a program with the secondary school. After years of frustration, francophone parents went to court, arguing that section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being violated. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of parents.

Let’s be clear. For the parents, this wasn’t about assigning blame. In fact, their petition to the court specifically avoided the question as to who was to blame. Yet, despite the Supreme Court of Canada ruling, parents still don’t have any answers about when the infringement of their rights will be addressed.

My question to the Minister of Education is this. Surely this is exactly the type of red tape that this government purports to want to do away with. Why, after over 15 years, has this government not stepped in to ensure that these children are getting the educational experience they are constitutionally entitled to?

Hon. M. Bernier: Thank you to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for the question. As I believe he’d be aware, because there is a court case going right now, I’m unable to talk about any of the specifics around that. But what I can talk about is our support for school district 93 and for the Conseil scolaire francophone.

When you look around British Columbia right now, there are 290,000 French-speaking people in British Columbia. We have 40 francophone associations. Our French immersion in our school system has increased by 40 percent. I agree with the member opposite that there’s lots that can be done to continue to support the French-speaking students in our school system. We have 53,000 French immersion students in 273 schools around the province. We also have school district 93, which has schools right around the province. We continue to work closely with them.
[ Page 11924 ]

I agree. There are opportunities that we have. We’re going to continue working with them, as we have been within my ministry, for the school Rose-des-vents, to make sure that they have the best education possible for all students. Every student in British Columbia deserves the same educational opportunities.

[1045]

Madame Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: It’s important to acknowledge that section 23 infringements require urgent action on behalf of the government. The Supreme Court of Canada, in the judgment, stated specifically: “For every school year that governments do not meet their obligations under section 23, there is an increased likelihood of assimilation and cultural erosion.”

This is especially true in the case of Ecole Rose-des-vents. In November of 2015, in the CSF school district facilities plan, the board notes that one school is no longer sufficient. In fact, francophone elementary schooling is in such demand that two schools are now required.

I don’t think it’s much to ask that after 15 years, parents be given more than just a commitment to study options and work with others. What is the timeline that the minister expects to see children relocated into a facility that meets their section 23 constitutional rights?

Hon. M. Bernier: We have two challenges here. We have a school district based mostly in Vancouver that is looking for space. We have the Vancouver school board, which has lots of empty space. I think that we have a great opportunity here to put the two groups together. When you look at the school district, the growing enrolment….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please wait, Minister.

Please continue.

Hon. M. Bernier: As the member opposite pointed out, we do have growing enrolment in CSF. It is one of the areas we do have growing enrolment, while we continue to see declining enrolments in the rest of Vancouver. One of the things that I think needs to happen, and I will work on this, is making sure that we get that message out there, that we can have these opportunities for the school districts to work together.

If we have empty classrooms and we need those, then let’s start using those classrooms for students and have great education in Vancouver.

SCHOOL CLOSING IN OSOYOOS

R. Fleming: Last night the South Okanagan–Similkameen school district voted to shut down the only high school in the town of Osoyoos — a move that compromises the town’s ability to attract new investment and jobs and to keep families living in that community.

Time and time again this community stood up, rallied, by the thousands, to save this school. Even the school board chair voted last night against closure. The board reminded a devastated community that the province had put them in an impossible situation.

From years of constant downloading of cost pressures, rising costs and provincially ordered so-called administrative savings cuts, the task became too great to save this school that is the lifeblood of this community. By the narrowest of margins, the board will close the town’s only high school, because this government’s budget has failed K-to-12 education and communities like Osoyoos in town after town across British Columbia.

My question to the Minister of Education is this, because I know he is more than familiar with this situation as we canvassed it in this House. Does he really have such little regard for the town of Osoyoos and the people of Osoyoos that he’s prepared to stand by and watch their only high school close because his education budget failed them?

Hon. M. Bernier: When you look at the decisions when you have declining enrolments in an area…. When you look at that specific school district, they have almost 27 percent fewer students than they did in 2001. These are tough decisions — when you don’t have children in the classrooms — that you have to make, when you don’t have students in a school district.

We on this side of the House, our government, wants to ensure that the maximum amount of dollars is being spent on students, on programs, in the classrooms, to help the students of British Columbia. That’s why we’ve increased our budget since 2001. Contrary to what the fact-free NDP like to say, we’ve increased our budget by $1.2 billion — going to the students of British Columbia.

At the same time, we’ve seen 70,000 fewer students in the province of B.C. So, yes, there are tough decisions that need to be made in the province of British Columbia by the school districts.

[1050]

Unfortunately, the member opposite is trying to make this a political issue, saying it should be done in this House. Our government agrees, and we have a great relationship with the school districts around the province and recognize that those decisions are best made at a local level, the ones who understand their communities.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: It’s interesting that the minister changes his tune so often on this. Today in the House, it’s a local decision when we talk about Osoyoos, after an entire
[ Page 11925 ]
town, its civic leaders, business community, parents and residents mobilized for months to save their school but couldn’t, because B.C. has declined from the second-best-funded education system in Canada to the second-worst. He says it’s a local decision.

Yet last week the very same Minister of Education, from his provincial perch, warned the Vancouver school board: “You’d better get on with closing dozens of schools, or else.” Which is it, Minister? Is it a local decision, or is it your decision to close schools in British Columbia? You can’t have it both ways.

The fact of the matter is that local decisions are only local if the school board has options, and this government has left this district with no option but to close schools, fire teachers and stick kids on buses to go to the next town. In a town like Osoyoos, this high school plays such an important role in the life of the community.

This is a school with award-winning science teachers. This is a school where high school classes volunteer on valuable, community-based projects. This is a community where this school matters. This government’s budget is forcing this school closure. That is a fact.

Will the minister finally work with the community of Osoyoos and its school board to keep this school open, to keep its teaching team intact and to keep this critical institution in the life of the community alive for kids today and alive for kids in the future of Osoyoos?

Hon. M. Bernier: Let me correct the member yet again. We’ve increased our budget year over year. In fact, that school district has seen almost $2 million more in their budget, even though they’ve had 27 percent fewer students in their school district.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ll correct the member who just tried to heckle me, saying we’re not funding…. Actually, the collective agreements — we are completely, 100 percent, funding the collective agreements, and we just recently announced that.

Another thing on this side of the House, because we’re finally seeing growth in our province, is that we’re 100 percent committed to funding all of the 6,500-plus new students that are in the province of British Columbia. Why are those students coming to British Columbia? Their families are moving here for opportunity. Their families are moving here for jobs.

We’re seeing opportunities all around the province, and $1.7 billion is going into our budget to increase those opportunities in B.C. We’ve built 46 new schools. We’ve replaced 70 schools. We’ve seismically upgraded 148 new schools. Why can we do that? People are moving to B.C. for the opportunities, for the jobs, because on this side of the House, we continue to support economic opportunities in British Columbia.

DISABILITY BENEFITS AND
BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

M. Mungall: It’s been a few weeks, and still we see the B.C. Liberals having said that the bus pass clawback is a communications problem. Well, Yuki Akawa doesn’t think so. Ms. Akawa is 20 years old, has autism and epilepsy, and she uses her bus pass to get to her volunteer job, find paid work and practise her socialization skills. She’s now faced with the choice to pay an extra $52 per month for a bus pass or to buy the specialized food that she needs for her diet.

For her, this isn’t a communications problem. This is a real-life problem. She’s tired of this minister’s spin job, and she doesn’t have $10,000 for a dinner with the Premier. So the question to the minister is: when…?

Interjections.

M. Mungall: In fact, she doesn’t even make $10,000 in a year.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Just take your seat now.

Members.

Please continue.

[1055]

M. Mungall: I see that after yesterday’s introduction of our legislation, we’ve touched a nerve with the opposition.

But more importantly for Ms. Akawa, she wants to know when this minister is actually going to start listening to the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who continually ask her to end the bus pass clawback. They’re not going to stop until she does, so she might as well do it today.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I absolutely understand. We on this side of the House understand that affordable transportation is important to people around this province. That’s why we invested $170 million to raise the rates for people with disabilities, as well as still provide transportation for absolutely everyone who is on PWD. I can say it again: 45,000 people, including the ones who live in the member opposite’s riding, did not get any transportation supports. Today they will receive those supports, starting September 1.

M. Mungall: Clearly, the minister is still dedicated to this line of a far-fetched concept that this is all just a communications problem. Well, let me remind the members opposite….

Interjections.
[ Page 11926 ]

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: Let me remind the members opposite, Madame Speaker, that the last time the B.C. Liberals thought something was just a communications problem, it was the HST. Oh, we all remember that. But just like five years ago, we see the Liberals on a failing communications spin job.

The same form letter that the Minister of Social Development has sent out to local media is the same form letter that the Minister of Transportation sends out and the same form letter that the member for Abbotsford South sends out. They’re all sending out this form letter that has this spin job that the minister delivered just now. But just like the HST, we don’t have a communications problem. We have a mean policy problem from this government.

Thousands of people are affected by this mean policy. Thousands of people are speaking out about it. Thousands of people know exactly what’s happening in their lives, and they want this bus pass clawback to end. When is the minister going to get it and start listening to the people who live this reality every day?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The fact is that the letters are going out to create the real information, the truth of the information, so that people understand that we are investing and that we are continuing to support people around this province who, we understand, need extra support. They will have transportation assistance if they choose. They have additional funds for their rates each and every month. We are able to make those investments because we continue to grow the economy. We are creating jobs. We are providing and investing in the people that we care about in this province.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the continuing estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines. And in this chamber, committee stage on Bill 17.

[1100]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — LOCAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN
FINANCING (ELECTION EXPENSES)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

On section 1.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I would like to introduce the individuals who are here with me today.

On my left is Jacquie Dawes, the Deputy Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. On my right is Heather Brazier, the former executive lead. Heather is no longer a full-time part of our ministry. She’s moved on, but she played such an important role over the years in bringing this legislation to where we are that she’s going to assist us as we move forward. I also would like to introduce, behind me, Erin Faulkner, who’s a solicitor for the Ministry of Justice.

I look forward to the discussions of this bill, section by section, and I now cede the floor to the hon. critic.

S. Robinson: I just want to extend thanks to the staff for bringing this bill forward.

I, too, look forward to going through line by line and making sure that we all understand what this bill is supposed to do and how it’s going to work.

[1105]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

S. Robinson: I just want to clarify how the minister understands the effect of changing this language — what effect that has. This is a bill that we just debated, I think, two years ago. Was LECFA two years ago?

Swapping out “election proceedings period” and substituting “campaign period” — what is the intention of that?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The purpose of this, of course, in light of the consultations and the task force and the work done by the committee, is to, in effect, set the table for the expense limits period and to make sure that all of the elements align with that in the act.

S. Robinson: I just want to make sure I understand this, because the election proceedings period…. Is that going to continue to exist, or is that just sort of old language? We’re out with all of that language, and we are just calling it something else. We’re just changing all of our language.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Indeed, we are replacing the old language with the new that reflects the changes that are in the legislation.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.
[ Page 11927 ]

S. Robinson: I’m wondering if the minister could tell us what this particular amendment attempts to do.

Hon. P. Fassbender: This change in this section reflects the campaign period of 28 days and the expense limits period that is associated with that.

S. Robinson: So why did the government initially seek to include a longer campaign period in the initial exposure bill? What changed between the exposure bill and this one?

Hon. P. Fassbender: As the member knows, when the exposure bill was put forward, there was an initial recommendation from the committee for a longer period. We felt very clearly that we wanted to give all of the parties one more opportunity to provide feedback.

As a result of that feedback from a number of stakeholders, including the Union of B.C. Municipalities, it was determined that the 28-day period was more appropriate for municipal election expense limits. It also puts it in line with the provincial legislation for provincial elections.

[1110]

S. Robinson: So the minister — I want to make sure I understand correctly — used that time to get additional feedback, even though the committee had already heard lots of feedback and made recommendations based on what the committee heard. It almost sounds like there was sort of a different voice. We heard different voices. I’m not quite sure who would have been different, given the committee’s thorough research and the committee’s unanimous recommendation.

Does the minister have any concerns about simply shifting spending into the period before the 28 days, where it’s not captured by an expense limit and where candidates could actually spend way more than the limit but it would not actually be captured by the expense limit that’s currently being recommended here?

Hon. P. Fassbender: The member is well aware, having sat on the committee, that the discussion around the campaign period and all of that was debated. The committee made a recommendation. I had heard, and we had heard through a number of sources, that there wasn’t support from the people in elected office and through UBCM that that period was appropriate.

One of the elements of this, of course, is that if, indeed, purchases are made prior to the 28-day period but the materials are used during that period, it still will apply against the expense limits during the period. So I don’t think there’s a shifting here. There is a responsibility for those things to be declared.

The change of the period — again, it was the one issue that I was well aware there was still not agreement on the part of UBCM and many other people. That’s why we put the exposure bill there, to give that final opportunity for input. Indeed, as a result of that, the change that is before us was made.

S. Robinson: Well, I was on that committee, and I have to tell the minister that we didn’t have a single person come before us and tell us that 28 days was what they were looking for. Clearly, he was getting his information from somewhere else because it wasn’t actually coming before us in our work.

I just want to make sure that I understand what the rationale is for this 28 days and to see if the minister has any concerns, given that it was a unanimously supported recommendation and given that the committee, when we were doing our analysis, was looking at spending from January 1 to election day. Our recommendations were based on that range of spending opportunity.

We have a very different sort of picture here. I want to know if the minister has any concerns, given that our recommendations were based on a different model.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I don’t want the member to take the wrong impression here. We fully appreciate the work of the committee.

[1115]

What was obvious…. Once the recommendations came forward and when the bill was first introduced as an exposure bill, there was feedback that we received from a number of sources that the January 1 date was one out of line with provincial election standards, and it also was fraught with some potential downsides.

We felt it was important, as I said at the beginning, to ensure that we gave the opportunity for feedback from key stakeholders. I did talk to the committee Chair as well, in terms of the process of deliberations. That caused me to feel that the exposure bill would give that one last opportunity.

As a result of the feedback from the key stakeholders, it was clear that the 28-day period was appropriate, based on that feedback. It also ensured, the way it is structured, that any expenditures that are made outside of that period would be counted in the 28-day period. We feel that lines up appropriately with the intent and with what the feedback from the task force prior to the committee and from the committee was. That’s why the change has been made that’s on the floor.

S. Robinson: Does the minister see any problem or concern with the fact that the recommended amounts that were brought forward in the recommendations…? That took a fair bit of work on behalf of the committee. We struggled for quite some time trying to figure out how to come up with some recommendations about what an expense limit should look like.

The parameters that we used, the material that we used was from the 2014 local elections. We went and used that
[ Page 11928 ]
data, and that was expenses from January 1 to election day. That was the data that was used by the committee.

Does the minister see there would be any challenge, given that the recommendations were based on that model, on that year, on those expenditures? Does he anticipate seeing maybe those numbers no longer meet the task, given it’s a changed parameter? We’re now down at a 28-day expense limit instead of a ten-month expense limit.

Hon. P. Fassbender: In evaluating this…. I know the member is well aware that this issue has been debated for quite a few years — the task force that preceded it coming to the committee and then, ultimately, the recommendations.

What I do see clearly in the bill that’s before us is it honours the expenditures for the 28-day period and includes those that might be made ahead of time. I believe that it does honour the spirit of the committee’s recommendations that those things be captured during that election period.

I also believe very clearly that what we’re doing here, based on what we’ve seen in the research that was done on expenditures when they traditionally happen in local elections…. This was a significant amount of feedback that we had from UBCM over the period. Indeed, most of the expenditures…. There are exceptions to that, but the majority of expenditures, based on previous elections, fall within that election period. I think, again, this change to the bill within that period honours that.

S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister walking through some of this with me. I want to make sure it works for all local governments, given that this is a bill that’s to cover all local governments.

He just mentioned the exceptions, that there are some exceptions. What is the minister’s plan to deal with the exceptions?

[1120]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I guess, for the member, I will try and really clarify what I said in my previous response. In looking at the window of elections and the task force work that was done and all of the debate at UBCM and other tables, it was clear that there was a large variance in terms of how expenses were being used and so on.

What we wanted to do was to clearly put it in this legislation and the other sections that follow — but in this area — to ensure that anything that was expended prior to the 28 days would be captured in the declarations of the 28 days. This does that. It changes the responsibility to ensure that it’s reported properly. In other sections of the bill, there are consequences when that would perhaps not be done. It’s very clear.

One of the keys to this, once this bill, if it passes through the House, is the information and the education that’s going to be provided to candidates in the future. We’re also going to monitor this in terms of the next election period. Whatever learning comes out of that, we will have the ability to deal with it at the time.

S. Robinson: I want to just make sure that I understand. If I am running for local election and I take out an ad in the newspaper once a month — January till 28 days, the 30th day before the election — promoting my candidacy, will that get captured in the expense limits, if this bill should pass?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, I think the member understands this, but for the record I want to make it very clear. Candidates are not declared until the actual close of nominations. If a candidate or a potential candidate or someone who’s thinking of running wants to get an indication of public support, they are free to run ads two years ahead of the next election period to say, “I’m interested, and here’s what I stand for,” and so on. If they choose not to put their nomination papers in, then they’ve spent that time, and they’ve got whatever answers they want.

However, any ad that is run after the close of nominations is contained within that expense limit and that period. So anything they do before the nominations close…. That’s one of the beauties, I believe, of democracy.

If I can…. Having been a locally elected official, I started to indicate about a year and a half before I decided to seek an office that I was interested, and I did a number of things in the community. I did a brochure that I handed out, saying: “I’m thinking of running for the mayor. Let me know what you think.” That would be outside until I actually filed my nomination papers.

S. Robinson: Thank you very much for that explanation. Let’s take it to another level. Let’s say it’s an elector organization, like NPA or Vision Vancouver, and they do similar. They might not actually have their nominations process done, but they certainly have a voice and a message. Would any of that advertising be captured in the expense time frame?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Exactly the same thing. An elector organization in a community may go out and communicate with the public that they represent this potential group of candidates, that they are interested in the public knowing who they are. Again, until they actually file their papers, they’re not a candidate. They’re only someone who may be thinking about being a candidate.

[1125]

The same rules that apply to an individual would apply to the elector organizations. But the day that all of those candidates file nomination papers, at the close of nominations, is when the limits would take effect.

S. Robinson: Would the minister agree that some of the runaway spending that we’re seeing in Vancouver…?
[ Page 11929 ]
It’s probably the biggest issue and the biggest concern that we have. Would he see having a 28-day limit actually reining in some of the spending? Would he expect…? At least I would expect that there would be a whole bunch of spending happening before the 28 days, and then we’d see their limits, probably, in those 28 days. Does he have any concerns, given what we’ve been hearing, certainly in the media and all over, around runaway spending for campaigns?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate where the member may be trying to come from. What is clearly happening in this bill is that we have defined the campaign period. We have said there will be limits within that campaign period. That will be controlled. Elector organizations or individual candidates, as I said in my previous answer, have the right to go out in a democracy and indicate their view and their vision for their community, why they have an elector organization or why a candidate might be interested.

Our government, I believe, clearly has said that that is part of the democratic process. I think it’s up to the people in those communities, if they have a problem with that, to express that to elector organizations as part of the democratic process. Free speech allows people to stand up and say anything they want — within limits, of course. But the reality is that within the period, the limits will be set.

Quite honestly, my experience also says to me that the electorate is not ready to really be thinking seriously about elections until a period, and that fixed period now allows certain expenditures and to control the spending within that period to put it on a more even playing field. But what happens before a candidate or an elector organization has candidates that file nomination papers, I think, is part of freedom that we should be celebrating.

S. Robinson: I, too, appreciate democracy, and I appreciate that people get to put their name forward. But we’ve certainly been hearing — and I know that the minister has been hearing — very serious concerns about big money, certainly in the newspaper, in provincial politics. Certainly, we’ve been hearing for years about big money in local politics, particularly in Vancouver.

I’d like to hear from the minister…. I understand what this bill is trying to do. It’s trying to contain spending, and I do appreciate that. It probably will, in most communities. But as the minister mentioned earlier, there are some exceptions, and it’s those exceptions that have motivated all of this work. It’s been a lot of work, and I appreciate what staff have done. This is quite a thick bill, and we’ve had all those others, Bills 20 and 21, so it just feels like you’ve probably been living this, and the staff have been living this, for a long time.

I really want to get a sense if the minister really thinks that this bill, the way it’s structured right now, will actually rein in that spending. We have certainly heard from people who are engaged in the democratic process. I have heard. I know the minister has heard. We’re certainly hearing it in the media. People are very jaded and very frustrated about the amount of money needed, the amount of money that’s required, and they are looking to us. They’re looking to us as legislators to make a level playing field.

I want to know if he thinks that a 28-day focus for spending is going to address the exceptions. In this case, Vancouver is probably the most obvious one.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I absolutely believe that the bill that is before us meets the issues that have been raised. I believe it puts a containment around a period and the spending within that period. What it doesn’t do is say you can’t spend anything outside of that period, because that’s not appropriate.

[1130]

I defend absolutely the work that was done over years to get us to the place we are, both in the other changes to the Election Act and also in terms of what’s before us in these amendments. But I will say this very clearly. I think the electorate has the opportunity to speak to those people who are seeking their confidence through an election period and prior to it to let them know what their opinion is. I think outside of the period that we’ve defined here, then it is up to elector organizations and up to potential candidates, if they are thinking about running, to think about what they’re spending and why they’re spending it.

I think that there is an opportunity there for a democratic process, but we are then ensuring that the period is well defined, the expenses within that are well defined, and there is no room…. As I said, what is clear: anything spent outside the election period and under the limits that is used within the period will be captured. There are provisions in the act that will ensure that they’re captured, and everyone will have to comply with that.

S. Robinson: The other thing that the minister said that caught my attention has to do with…. He said, I think, something about the government wanting to make it similar to the provincial rules. Can the minister explain why that’s so important?

Hon. P. Fassbender: One of the principles that was at the heart of the discussions leading up to even the exposure bill coming forward and so on…. Initially, the one element in the exposure bill that was out of line was the January 1 date. One of the basic principles that we looked at very closely and we had feedback on was trying to align the local government elections and the provincial and federal in terms of the campaign periods. This legislation reflects that principle, and that is why we brought it forward with the change now to the 28-day period.
[ Page 11930 ]

S. Robinson: I understand that we want it to be the same, but that’s not a rationale, just that we want it to be the same. What’s the value? What’s the principle or the…? I guess value is the only word I can think of. When the committee was asked to undertake the work that it did, it’s first phase was to take a look at principles. What are the guiding principles you’re going to use to make some recommendations?

The committee went about talking to people all over the province — people who were elected, elector organizations, UBCM — and I didn’t hear anyone say it must be in line with federal and provincial. It wasn’t something…. A consistency wasn’t what came out of those talks, that they were looking for consistency. Clearly, there had to be some rationale other than: we just want it to be the same. If we just want it to be the same, well, why? Why is that important?

I’d really like to hear from the minister why that value of same is important. Why can’t it be different?

[1135]

Hon. P. Fassbender: I appreciate…. I hope the member can understand the value in what we’re doing. One is to contain the expense limit spending during a campaign period from the day a candidate is declared as a candidate by signing nomination papers and the close of nominations.

Looking across the country, looking at the federal periods and the provincial periods, it was definitely believed that maintaining a shorter period of time and ensuring — I think this is the key principle — that anything that is spent outside of that period that is used within the period, whether it’s a sign or anything like that, has to be captured within that 28-day period…. That will limit the expenditures within the framework that we’re going to be bringing forward.

S. Robinson: If we’re going to be seeking similar rules to be in place for both provincial and local campaigns, has the minister looked at the real effect of a 28-day period provincially? I’d like to know, if he has, what he has learned about how spending happens.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Suffice it to say, I know that the committee and the task force prior to the committee and the discussions and round tables that I sat at…. There was a real desire to bring some semblance of order and structure to local elections that hadn’t been there before and that reflected what was being done provincially and federally. It was clear that there was a desire to establish limits and spending limits within that, accountability for those, tracking of those and reporting — which, of course, will happen as a result of the bill when it passes, if it passes, in the House.

Yes, we looked at everything. What this does is it aligns it with the provincial practice, and federal, and reflects other jurisdictions and what they’re doing in local elections. I think the intent and the outcome of what we have in front of us meets the desires that we heard over the years as we moved to the place that we are today.

A. Weaver: You will note, on the order paper, an amendment to section 3 that’s in my name. It’s been on the order paper for quite some time.

I’ve listened to the discussion between the minister and the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who was a member of the actual committee that was charged with coming up with recommendations. As the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has pointed out numerous times, the discussions were assuming that expenses were going to occur through the entire campaign period.

In fact, on page 33 of the report submitted to government, of which the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville was a member, it states the following:

“The committee received notice from government late in the process of its work of a proposed change to the local elections campaign period from 46 days to 28 days. Committee members expressed concern that the 2014 expenditure data included all spending from January 1 until election day, and therefore, the committee’s recommendations were based on an analysis of a longer campaign period. One concern is that candidates may make purchases of election materials, such as flyers or advertising materials, and use these materials before a 28-day period and not have this captured as an expense.

[1140]

“Committee members agreed that in order for expense limits to be effective, they must apply to all campaign spending. They concluded that the local election expense limits recommended by the committee for elector organizations and candidates should apply from January 1 of the election year to election day.”

Now, the government had a majority on this committee. So this statement, buried within the report, was supported by the government majority on the actual committee as well.

My amendment that I’m bringing forward here is actually to try and reflect the wishes of the committee — as the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has done with a number of other amendments that we’ll discuss later today, which I agree and support all of — wishes that were, frankly, trying to reflect the same thing. The numbers that were used were based for an entire campaign period, not just for this artificial construct that has been brought forward by government in the bill that we see before us.

In that spirit, I’d like to move, at this stage — it’s on the order paper — the following. I won’t read out the entire amendment, but it’s with respect to section 3:

[SECTION 3, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

3 Section 10 is repealed and the following substituted:

Election, campaign and assent voting proceedings period

10 (1) The election period in relation to an election is the period that

(a) begins, as applicable,

(i) in the case of an election that is part of a general local election, at the start of the calendar year in which the election is held,

(ii) in the case of a by-election, on the day the local authority office that is to be filled by the by-election becomes vacant, or
[ Page 11931 ]

(iii) in the case of any other election, on the date specified by or determined under the regulations, and

(b) ends at the beginning of the campaign period for the election.

(2) The campaign period in relation to an election is the period that

(a) begins on the 28th day before general voting day for the election, at the start of the calendar year in which the election is held or on the 46th day before general voting day, whichever is longer, and

(b) ends, as applicable,

(i) in the case of an election by voting, at the close of general voting for the election, or

(ii) in the case of an election by acclamation, at the end of general voting day.

(3) The assent voting proceedings period in relation to non-election assent voting is the period that

(a) begins on the 28th day before general voting day for the assent voting, and

(b) ends at the close of general voting for the assent voting.]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: This change, this amendment, is designed explicitly to reflect the assumptions that the committee, of which government had a majority, were operating under when they made further recommendations in terms of funding.

With that, I move the amendment accordingly.

[1145]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[1150]

Hon. C. Clark: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark: We are joined in the gallery just now by the kids from Fraser Valley Elementary School. I had the chance to meet them out in the rotunda. I gave them a piece of homework for tonight, and that is to go home and ask their parents if they think they pay too much tax.

It’s wonderful to meet them. Their head of school, Laurel Middelaer, who is a force of nature herself, has described…

Interjections.

Hon. C. Clark: It’s an introduction, folks. Hang on.

…them as bright and authentic. After having met them myself, I heartily agree. I hope the House will please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

The Chair: The committee resumes on section 3 of Bill 17.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
[ Page 11932 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENERGY AND MINES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); G. Kyllo in the chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $25,912,000 (continued).

A. Dix: I want to start with a question about a B.C. Hydro request for an expression of interest in Haida Gwaii. I’m wondering if the minister could let me know what the status of that is.

[1105]

Hon. B. Bennett: Probably, it would be really useful if the member wouldn’t mind giving us a bit more detail. There are some wind projects up in that area that companies have been promoting, but I need to know exactly what the member is referring to before I can answer the question.

A. Dix: This is B.C. Hydro’s material. B.C. Hydro put out a request for expressions of interest in the fall of 2012. There’s been follow-up since then, and I wanted to know the status of that. It’s a B.C. Hydro matter. It’s not a proponent matter.

Hon. B. Bennett: I’m advised that the expression of interest that was requested in 2012 was pursuant to Hydro’s intention to try to help the Haida get off diesel, which is a laudable goal and something that we would like to do a lot more of in the future. Subsequent to the offering being put out there in 2012, it was not possible to get consensus amongst the different Haida points of view on this, and the offer has actually been withdrawn and cancelled.

A. Dix: With respect to the specific proposals, has the president of B.C. Hydro ever met with Mr. Bruce Clark, a B.C. entrepreneur who is responsible and an advocate for the Broadwing Renewables proposal for wind power on Haida Gwaii?

Hon. B. Bennett: The answer is no.

A. Dix: Has Mr. Chris O’Riley, the deputy CEO, ever met with him on that issue?

Hon. B. Bennett: The answer is no, and just to save the member asking, I’ve not met with them either.

A. Dix: Was there a meeting in September 2015 involving Mr. O’Riley and Mr. Clark and others with respect to this issue of the request for expressions of interest? Was there a meeting at that time between Mr. O’Riley, Mr. Ray and others and Mr. Clark at B.C. Hydro in September 2015?

[1110]

Hon. B. Bennett: All I know at this point in time is that there is a recollection within senior Hydro staff of a meeting with the Haida. No one can recall who was there, but it is not difficult for Hydro to figure that out and let the member know who was there. I’m advised that Bruce Clark was not there.

The member can continue to ask questions, and we’ll try to sort it out.

A. Dix: Specifically, I’m referring to a meeting on September 22, and I’m asking who was at the meeting.

Hon. B. Bennett: We’ll figure out who was at the meeting in September. Right now we’re just going on people’s recollections, and we obviously need to do better than that. We’ll figure out who was there, and we’ll tell the member who was at the meeting.

A. Dix: Perhaps you can come back with that after lunch, which will be happening shortly, in any event.

A question on Site C costs. The minister will know that Site C wasn’t referred to the Utilities Commission and relatively little public information was provided with regard to cost. I just had a simple question to start with. How much is it going to cost to build the approach channel, spillway, intakes and penstocks for the Site C dam?

Hon. B. Bennett: We’ll get the number. We’re guessing at where the member wants to go with this. Rather than guess, I’ll let the member take us there, because I’m not sure where he wants to go.

A. Dix: Well, it’s obviously early in the estimates. I mean, last year I asked questions about projects that cost tens of millions of dollars, and B.C. Hydro wasn’t able to come up with any information in response to those for months — basic questions about major spending projects.

This is the major spending project at B.C. Hydro. I think that the minister and I, whatever we think of Site C, would agree on that. These are major cost items. There is a budget, I presume. Every time we FOI that budget, it gets redacted by B.C. Hydro. These are major cost items. They’ve always been provided before, until this Liberal party management of B.C. Hydro.
[ Page 11933 ]

I’m asking a basic question on their most major project, and they can’t find the answer to that question. Is that what the minister is telling me?

Hon. B. Bennett: No, that’s not what I’m telling the member. I’m telling the member, I guess, two things. Number one, if the items have not been procured yet…. We, obviously, can’t put a specific number on things that have not actually gone out to bid yet. That’s the first thing.

[1115]

Secondly, when the earlier budgets were done, items like — some people refer to them as soft costs, but they’re real costs — inflation, interest and contingency were separated from the construction budget in lump sums. When the project was approved, it then became necessary for those soft costs to be attributed to the various components of the project. So those costs — the interest, the portion of contingency and inflation — are now apportioned to the specific components of the project.

We want to make sure that we give the member the most accurate information we possibly can on those items that have been procured. We absolutely can do that, and we will do that. He won’t have to wait months and months for it.

A. Dix: Well, there was a budget for this dam. It was presented in summary to the joint review panel. It was presented. It exists in time and space. In fact, because the joint review panel was in federal jurisdiction, presumably, we actually have it. It’s not very detailed. In fact, it couldn’t be less detailed, actually. Contrary to the tradition at B.C. Hydro, less detail, not more detail, was given to the shareholders of B.C. Hydro on this project, where the cost numbers and the cost estimates by the corporation and by the Liberal government, which ordered the corporation to do the project, are very much in question.

They provided those. The minister talks about allocating contingencies. My question was about the spillway, intake and penstock. You do not allocate contingencies on a project to core items. If you don’t have those items, it’s a hockey rink, not a dam — at $8 billion. Those are core items. You do not allocate contingencies to that item. That is ridiculous and not the meaning of contingency on a project like that. The suggestion that they’re allocating contingencies tells you that they’re allocating contingencies for overruns in 2016. It’s unbelievable.

What does that budget tell us, the one budget they’ve let us know on Site C? They did it to the joint review panel. Then they upgraded it to reflect the change from the HST to the PST. It’s currently $8.775 billion, and everybody knows…. The minute the Premier said, “Not a penny more,” they knew it was going to be more. They knew exactly, at that moment, it was going to be more.

What did the budget say? Well, it said $1.79 billion, the key item for an “earthfill dam; approach channels and RCC buttress; spillway, intakes and penstock; left bank stabilization; cofferdams, dikes and diversion tunnels.” So what’s the big contract? You know, they have press conferences with green screen. If only we could green-screen a budget so that it’s actually on budget. If only we could green-screen that. They have press conferences with green screen on contract announcements on this project.

What did their major contract give? It was $1.7 billion for the construction of an earthfill dam, two diversion tunnels, a roller-compacted-concrete foundation for the generating station and spillways. In other words, they spent all of the money under that budget item. They’ve already spent it, and it doesn’t include spillway, intake and penstock, which a reasonable person, having viewed actual information — not recent information from B.C. Hydro but actual information — would know costs at least $750 million. That’s how much they’re over budget on that item already. It’s 2016. The thing is coming into force in 2024. They’ve spent all the money in that line item and orphaned are the spillway, intake and penstock.

I’m simply asking, by asking how much those things cost, how much B.C. Hydro is over budget on the Site C project.

[1120]

Hon. B. Bennett: I think we can have the breakdown. I’m sure it won’t satisfy the member, and it is awfully early in the process for anybody to be getting hysterical at this point. We’ll get those numbers for him. I think we can have them, for sure, early this afternoon, hopefully right after the lunch break.

The member is incorrect to suggest that you don’t apportion contingency to the components of the project. Contingency costs are apportioned — so is inflation, so is interest.

I’m going to repeat myself because I think it’s important. When the budget was first announced, there was all kinds of detail. If the NDP wanted to, they could still go on the website. I think we delivered a 50-some-odd-page PowerPoint presentation when we announced that we were going to go forward with the project. There is all kinds of budget information there for them to look at.

As I said a minute ago, those so-called soft costs had not been apportioned yet, which I am advised is a normal way of doing things. Once the project starts being built, you then have to apportion these costs to the individual items. It’s that reconciliation, which has been done and which we don’t have right here at our fingertips, that we are going to get for the member. It would be great if we could get it before lunch so that he would have the time to go over it while he’s having lunch.

A. Dix: Well, the fact of the matter is that…. I mean, I’m not sure what information people bring to these sorts of things, but that information is not on that website, not in those documents, meaning it wasn’t provided.

I know that the minister is a student of history — always interested to hear about hysteria from him — and he’ll
[ Page 11934 ]
know that this isn’t the first time that B.C. Hydro has tried to build Site C. On the previous occasions, they’ve put forward analysis. They specifically said, on those occasions — both in 1981, when they tried to build it, as the minister will know, and then in 1987, when they allocated costs to all those detailed items and provided them to the public….

It’s looking optimistic, as I keep talking, that the minister may have an answer to this question. It’s a pretty basic question. They’ve spent all of the budget for that item, and they don’t have a dam. This is the budget that they presented to the joint review panel and then presented to the public of British Columbia.

They’ve allocated, in their first contract, all of the expenditures in that item, and they haven’t allocated any dollars — zero dollars — to things essential to the dam happening. It wouldn’t be a dam if they didn’t acknowledge that.

It sounds like the minister may have a response, and I look forward to getting it.

[1125]

Hon. B. Bennett: We’ll provide a one-page document to the member here shortly, which I suspect he’s seen and he’s familiar with. At least, I’m pretty sure he’s familiar with it.

We think — and if we’re wrong about this, the member will tell us — that the member is trying to bundle components of the project together and ask, “What’s the budget for that?” when some of those components have not been bid out yet. So Hydro has not….

A. Dix: You mean there’s no budget.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the member may never have worked in the commercial world. The member asks whether we have a budget or not. The Chair, actually, has run businesses, so he’ll know what I’m talking about. There is obviously a global budget for things, but when you’re going to tender out these components — worth tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars — you don’t want to tip your hand to prospective bidders on how much you’ve got in your budget for these particular items.

We’ll give the member global numbers for dam and associated structure, power facilities, off-site works, construction management, temporary services and infrastructure. He will, no doubt, want to drill into that, and to the extent that the components that we’re talking about have been bid out and Hydro has a contract for those components, we can talk specific dollars. To the extent that those components have not yet been bid out, we’re not going to talk specific dollars and put B.C. Hydro in an unfavourable position when they do go out to bid on these components.

A. Dix: I mean, to describe that as utter nonsense is to be generous. In 1981, for example, what do we have from B.C. Hydro? An estimate of capital costs.

Now, this is the difference. In the 1980s, there’s a Premier, Bill Bennett — or maybe for the purposes of this thing, William Richards Bennett — and there was a B.C. Utilities Commission on this project. So B.C. Hydro had to go and make the case for its costs before the Utilities Commission and the Utilities Commission process. They tried to do that, and I can tell you the Utilities Commission was very critical of Hydro for its performance, I think it’s fair to say. The Premier of the day rejected a project that was a bad decision.

Interjection.

A. Dix: The minister just said it was a bad decision. Just to show, because this will be familiar to him, here’s what B.C. Hydro said about demand and load forecast, because on the Site C dam they’re exaggerating demand and load forecast to justify the dam.

In the 1981 process, here’s what they said: “The demand for energy was going to increase 5.6 percent a year every year for 20 years.” That was their 20-year load forecast then. So 300 percent is how much they said the load forecast was going to grow, and on that basis, we justify Site C.

[1130]

You know how much the load forecast grew? Twenty-seven percent. In other words, they were monumentally wrong and would have dramatically undermined the financial stability of B.C. Hydro had they gone ahead, had there not been a Utilities Commission and a government that said no to them at the time.

At that time, they provided, and again in 1987, when they proposed Site C entirely for export, which is what this government is doing now…. They again proposed it, and what did they say? Spillway, in that case. They provided specific numbers for the spillway, specific numbers for the power intakes and penstocks. That number was $164.2 million, adding the two items together.

Why can’t B.C. Hydro provide that today? It has no effect on the bidding. It’s absurd to say that we can’t tell the public the truth because it affects the bidding.

They have a line item. They’re the ones who bundled things in the line item. They spent all the money in the line item. So by definition, everything over that, everything they haven’t bid out in that line item, puts them over budget. I’m just asking why they’re over budget.

The decision to assign contingencies in 2016 and pretend, when contingencies are for geotech problems and other things on this kind of project…. We’ve seen other projects. It’s absurd.

They said what these things would cost. They said they could deliver those things, and they have been completely, so far, unable to do so within the budget that they told the joint review panel they were operating under.

Very simple. The minister is bundling them up again. Is the minister prepared to tell the people of B.C. what these
[ Page 11935 ]
items — which they said were covered in the $1.79 billion, which they said were covered in there — cost? There has to be a budget for those items. There was in 1981. There was in 1987. It wasn’t Qatar Hydro. It was B.C. Hydro then. It’s B.C. Hydro now, and we want to know basic information. Will the minister tell us that basic information?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think, probably, the best thing to do for the member, so that he can relax a little bit, is for me to give him this piece of paper. Then, this afternoon, he may wish to drill down with some of these numbers.

The member makes so many incorrect comments. It’s astounding, actually. He clearly doesn’t know anything about business or budgets or financial matters. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be saying the ridiculous things that he’s saying.

What really, if the member wants to throw insults back and forth, made absolutely no sense was when the government of British Columbia invested in a power plant in Pakistan. I wonder if the member who is asking the questions was advising the government at that time. That was a really dumb thing to do.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: I just needed to get it in. I just wanted to make sure…. Maybe I’ll get to repeat it.

The components of this project, as they are bid out — we know what they cost exactly. What I can tell the member, not that he cares about having the facts that don’t meet his political agenda or narrative, is that the project actually is on time and on budget. The member is going to have…. Well, the NDP are going to have egg on their face about a lot of things, this being one but LNG being another.

But we’ll give him the paper, and he can play around with it as much as he wants to. We’ll do our best, if he actually has any questions, to provide answers to him.

While I’m on my feet, the meeting that the member asked about in September — the attendees were Peter Lantin, president of the Council of the Haida Nation; Trevor Russ, vice-president of the Council of the Haida Nation; Ken Rea, chief councillor, Old Massett Village Council; Cecil Brown, councillor, Old Massett Village Council; Chris O’Riley, deputy CEO of B.C. Hydro; and Rohan Soulsby, director of business and economic development, B.C. Hydro. Those were on the list of attendees at that meeting.

A. Dix: I’ll just ask the question. The minister asked if we had any questions. We have a very simple one. What is the budgeted cost for the spillway, intake and penstock?

[1135]

Is it the minister’s position, as is suggested here, that B.C. Hydro is not prepared to answer even that basic question here about the cost of Site C? Why would they not be prepared to answer that question, when B.C. Hydro has consistently answered those questions in past efforts to bring Site C to British Columbia? Is he saying — because this document, of course, doesn’t say anything of the sort — that B.C. Hydro and the Liberal government are refusing to answer basic questions about the costs of Site C?

If he is, and that’s his answer, then that’s fine, I guess. But people can judge that — why B.C. Hydro once chose to tell the truth about such things and now doesn’t want to answer those things. They can explain it. That’s their position. But I can’t think of a more basic question to ask in estimates about a project that hasn’t been reviewed by the Utilities Commission.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, let me try this and see if I can get through to the member.

When you’re looking to buy a house, a condominium, often your realtor will ask you: “Well, what’s your budget?” You think to yourself: “Do I really want my realtor to know what my budget is? Because whatever my budget is, they’re going to try to sell me a house for the top number of my budget.”

It’s the same thing when you buy a car. It’s exactly the same thing. When you go onto the car lot, the car salesperson says: “What’s your budget?”

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, could you please instruct the boo-birds on the other side to allow me to answer questions? This is estimates. It’s not question period.

It’s the same thing with a car. I’m trying to bring this down to earth so that the members on the other side can understand it. When you go onto the car lot…

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: …you don’t want the car salesman to know what your budget is. What the member is suggesting B.C. Hydro do in this case is to tell those who have not yet bid on some of these components how much money they have in the kitty to spend on those components.

What do you think those people, those companies who are going to bid are going to do? They’re going to look at how much is in there, and they’re going to bid the absolute maximum amount.

Now, is that a responsible thing for B.C. Hydro to do to its ratepayers? Or should B.C. Hydro be trying to procure all of these elements, all of these components of this big project at the lowest possible price?

That is what they’re doing. That is why we cannot get into a specific number for items that have yet to be procured. It is common sense. Anybody who has ever been
[ Page 11936 ]
in business knows that it’s common sense. It is only the NDP who don’t get it.

A. Dix: Yeah, the NDP and the Social Credit Party and every other government before this. This is not a private purchase of a house. It’s a major public project.

The Premier has said it won’t cost any more than $8.775 billion. That’s what the Premier has said. We’re asking questions about that matter. What the minister is saying expresses no faith or understanding of what competitive bidding is at all, I don’t think.

I know that his suggestion would only be true if there was one bidder. He doesn’t know what competitive bidding is at all. And he’s saying that they were wrong in ’81 and they were wrong in ’87? Not NDP governments — Social Credit governments that decided to tell the public the truth about a project. They were wrong, and he’s right. Well, okay. That’s his discussion.

It doesn’t change the fact that on this key budget item, which, by the way, is not a fixed-price contract…. It’s not a fixed-price contract — the contract we’re talking about. The $1.75 billion is not a fixed-price contract. That’s why it says in their announcement “approximately $1.75 billion,” which, given the minister’s 50/30 formula that we all remember — it could be 50 percent more or 30 percent less — could take us almost anywhere.

The fact is that there are reasons for that. The reason it’s not a fixed-price contract is that there’s something called contingencies. You don’t actually know the impact of building such a dam and the consequences of building such a dam, the technical difficulties of doing so, until you’re there. Obviously, it’s not a fixed-price contract to move that much earth, right? Not a fixed-price contract.

The minister is saying that because he doesn’t want to tip off the competitive bidders, he can’t tell the public the truth about the overrun on Site C.

[1140]

There is an overrun on Site C, compared to what they told the federal government and the joint review panel and compared to what they told the public when they announced it. There’s an overrun.

I’m just determining and trying to determine with the minister, through basic questions, that past governments have provided that information. Can the minister say, if the minister is making allegations about not knowing business, why it was appropriate for the Social Credit government in 1981 and again in 1987 to provide such basic information, and why B.C. Hydro and he won’t do so today?

Hon. B. Bennett: I’m going to try one more time, with a different example, to try to get through to the member on this, so that he can understand why you can’t publish or publicize your budget for items that have not yet been procured.

If the member goes on B.C. Bid and looks at all the bids there, he will never, I would think, see a budget for the seller for whatever government agency is bidding out something. You don’t want those who are going to bid on providing a service or product to know how much money you have before they bid.

It is only common sense. For those items that have been bid out, obviously, we know exactly, to the dollar, how much those components cost. I can tell the member — he won’t accept it, and that’s his right — that the Site C project is not over budget. In fact, the Site C project is looking very, very good right now.

A. Dix: Eight years to go, and they’ve allocated all of the contingency, but it’s looking good. It’s looking fantastic. The fact is, I think it’s really disgraceful….

[The bells were rung.]

A. Dix: I’ll leave the minister in suspense about what is disgraceful until after we vote.

Hon. B. Bennett: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We stand adjourned until this afternoon.

The committee rose at 11:42 a.m.

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.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada