2009 Legislative Session: Fifth Session,

38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, February 23, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 38, Number 8

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Hockeyville competition

D. MacKay

Forest industry in B.C.

D. Routley

Alternative energy companies in Burnaby

R. Lee

Jim Wakely

M. Sather

Volunteer organizations in Richmond-Steveston area

J. Yap

Swan Lake–Christmas Hill Nature Sanctuary

R. Fleming

Oral Questions

Budget revenue projections

C. James

Hon. C. Hansen

B. Ralston

R. Fleming

Impact of fuel tax on economy

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Hansen

Mackenzie pulp mill

B. Simpson

Hon. P. Bell

S. Simpson

Hon. B. Penner

School access for refugee child

N. Simons

Hon. T. Christensen

Funding for adoption system

R. Austin

Hon. T. Christensen

Comments by Agriculture Minister on Parksville watershed

S. Fraser

Hon. R. Cantelon

Petitions

M. Sather

S. Simpson

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Community Development (continued)

Hon. K. Krueger

C. Wyse

M. Karagianis

G. Coons

B. Simpson

H. Bains

B. Ralston

C. Evans

J. Horgan

G. Gentner

R. Fleming

J. Brar

N. Macdonald

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development

Hon. M. Coell

R. Fleming

B. Ralston

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Housing and Social Development

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Kwan

M. Sather

C. Evans

[ Page 13881 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

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

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

[1335]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1340]

[ Page 13882 ]

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

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) HOCKEYVILLE competition

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

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

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

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

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

FOREST INDUSTRY in B.C.

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

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

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY Companies

in Burnaby

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

[1345]

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

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

In 2001 I had the opportunity to witness a joint venture in the making between Xantrex and Shanghai Electric during the Premier's visit to Shanghai. Xantrex specializes in converting and controlling raw electrical power from various power resources into high-quality

[ Page 13883 ]

power required by electronic equipment and the electricity grid.

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

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

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

JIM WAKELY

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

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

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

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

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

Volunteer Organizations in

RICHMOND-STEVESTON Area

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

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

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

[1350]

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

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

swan lake–christmas hill

nature sanctuary

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

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

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

[ Page 13884 ]

wharves and a floating walkway to provide access to the lake area.

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

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

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

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

Oral Questions

budget revenue projections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1355]

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

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

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

So my question, again, is to the minister. Why should British Columbians trust, when it comes to honesty and accuracy of this budget, when we have a Premier who is in damage control and an economist who says the

[ Page 13885 ]

government has completely missed the mark when it comes to this budget?

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

Interjections.

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

Continue.

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

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

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

[1400]

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We actually rely on expert advice in terms of budget-making. We actually know that British Columbia is going through a difficult stretch in the economy, as caused by outside global factors. But we also know that this is a province that is resilient, and this is a province

[ Page 13886 ]

that is going into this economic downturn with a solid economic base. We believe this is a province that's going to be even stronger when we come out of it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

[1405]

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

IMPACT OF Fuel TAX ON Economy

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

Interjection.

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

J. Horgan: British Columbians across….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

[ Page 13887 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Choose your words wisely, Member.

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

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

[1410]

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

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

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

MACKENZIE PULP MILL

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

[1415]

[ Page 13888 ]

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

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

SCHOOL ACCESS FOR REFUGEE CHILD

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

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

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

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

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

FUNDING FOR Adoption SYSTEM

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

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

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

[1420]

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

comments by agriculture minister

on PARKSVILLE WATERSHED

[ Page 13889 ]

apologized in private. Will he now apologize to this House for making inaccurate and misleading statements to the members of the Legislature and to the record of Hansard ?

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

I want to say to the Arrowsmith Watersheds Coalition Society that I used the wrong acronym, AWCS. I should have said the Arrowsmith Water Service, which is comprised of representatives from Parksville, from Qualicum Beach and from the regional district, who indeed took

part in the watershed assessment portfolio plan to protect the watershed in this sensitive area.

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

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

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[1425]

Petitions

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

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

Orders of the Day

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

[ Page 13890 ]

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:27 p.m.

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

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

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

C. Wyse: Once more, I would like to follow up with some questions of the minister here. In particular, I wish to start off with a bit of a

preamble on the importance of running out this $186 million for supplementary estimates at this period of time. It is immediately just before an election. It is important that we establish that context.

[1430]

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Previously asked and answered.

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

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: All local governments.

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Previously asked and answered.

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

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

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

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

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

[1435]

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

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

In particular, I'm concerned about communities like Esquimalt. The Archie Browning recreation centre there is an aging building and one of the very few sources of hockey ice and rink time here in the south Island. So it's very important for me to know whether or not this is an

[ Page 13891 ]

opportunity that the community might be getting some dollars towards.

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

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Previously asked and answered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1440]

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Local autonomy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 13892 ]

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Excellent certainty.

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

[1445]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Answered Thursday.

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

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

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

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

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

G. Coons: So as far as any of the other amounts, first nations communities, even though they may be part of the treaty…. Under the Nisga'a treaty, the four

[ Page 13893 ]

communities — New Aiyansh, Greenville, Canyon City and Kincolith — have municipal status. So would they be getting anything as far as their municipal status, as far as treaty?

Hon. K. Krueger: Local governments.

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

[1450]

Hon. K. Krueger: Funded separately.

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Not these supplemental estimates.

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

Taxpayers and the opposition members are always a bit suspicious, especially after the federal infrastructure announcements of last week, where the minister, in the House, said: "The federal government has expressed a willingness to participate in infrastructure projects with us. We announced the other day funding for 41 of those projects, including a specific one."

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes, soon.

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Very soon.

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

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

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Not these supplemental estimates.

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

[1455]

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Not relevant.

Point of Order

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

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

[ Page 13894 ]

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

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

Interjection.

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

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

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

Debate Continued

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Six hours Thursday.

Interjections.

The Chair: Member. Members.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member. Order, Member.

Member.

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is no.

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

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

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

[1500]

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

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. Simpson: With respect to the overall program here, as I understand it, this is a lift to this year's budget. Does the minister believe that this $2 million will actually be

[ Page 13895 ]

spent pre-end of fiscal this year — that there are enough programs in play, enough people can bring the 50 percent to the table to actually get the trees in the ground by March 31 of this year?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes.

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

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

[1505]

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chair: Excuse me, Member.

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

[1510]

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

Continue, Member.

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

We would get some answers from the people in authority, the minister, that we can take back to our communities and provide those answers and the information that they deserve. These are the taxpayers who

[ Page 13896 ]

are paying the minister's salary, my salary and everyone else's salary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Asked and answered.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

The Chair: Member. Order, Member.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, Member.

Interjection.

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

Continue, Member.

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

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

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

[1515]

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

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

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, Members. Order.

Continue, Member.

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

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

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

[ Page 13897 ]

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

Hon. K. Krueger: No denials.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

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

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

[1520]

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

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

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

The Chair: Member. Member.

C. Evans: Yeah?

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

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

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

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

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

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

This minister's estimates are part of that — what? — $180 million, $200 million extra that was brought in here after we were told that everything was okay, and 36 hours later we found out the budget was bogus. So the

[ Page 13898 ]

hon. members are trying to find out what you're going to do with 180 million bucks in the next 60 days, while we think you're going to go around and pass it out town to town to try and elect a bunch of members who won't tell the truth in the budget.

Now, hon. Chair….

The Chair: Member, Member.

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

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

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

C. Evans: The estimates of this….

The Chair: The supplementary….

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

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

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

[1525]

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

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

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

The Chair: Member. Member.

C. Evans: What?

The Chair: I would like you….

C. Evans: Sir. What, sir?

The Chair: Please show respect for the Chair.

C. Evans: Yes, sir.

The Chair: I am the Chair — okay?

C. Evans: Got it.

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

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

The Chair: Yes.

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

The Chair: Withdraw the statement.

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

The Chair: Members. All Members.

Member for Nelson-Creston, please take your seat.

Minister. Minister.

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

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

Interjections.

[ Page 13899 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. K. Krueger: Repetitive questioning.

[Interruption.]

The Chair: Wait.

Sergeant-at-Arms, please remove that person.

Interjections.

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

Nelson-Creston, please take your seat.

The House will recess for five minutes.

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

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

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

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

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

[1545]

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

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

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

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

H. Bains: Of course, hon. Chair.

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

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

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

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

LocalMotion is a program that communities of any size can apply for. We have one application from Surrey. Trees for Tomorrow is a program that any community can apply for. We have one application in from Surrey

[ Page 13900 ]

for Trees for Tomorrow. We wouldn't expect more than one, necessarily, from any…. We would only be able to provide one under LocalMotion — which is, as one of the members reiterated today, oversubscribed.

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

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

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

[1550]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1555]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 13901 ]

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

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

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

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

[1600]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1605]

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

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

R. Fleming: Chair, I would like to ask the minister if he is aware, and what his opinion might be, of instances where municipalities — perhaps these three: Saanich,

[ Page 13902 ]

Victoria and Oak Bay — are taking these revenue grants and using them to address local pressures they may have on property tax increases that they have for their tax base.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1610]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 13903 ]

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

[1615]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1620]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Queen Charlotte City — $486,268, small community grant. Stewart — $484,706, small community grant.

[ Page 13904 ]

And the two regional districts that the member asked about — Central Coast, $260,347, small community grant; and Skeena–Queen Charlotte, exactly the same — $260,347.

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

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

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

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

Supplementary Estimates:

ministry of advanced education

and labour market development

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

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

[1625]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

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

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

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

[1630]

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

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

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

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

R. Fleming: Is there a draft copy that the minister could provide to at least give all of the legislators here an idea of what some of the pressures are, not in his own

[ Page 13905 ]

words, but in those we entrust to manage the financial assets and benefit plans and pension plans of the public service?

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

R. Fleming: I was asking the minister if he would share the draft report, at least the

section pertaining to the money that you're asking for approval of today, with the House so that we can scrutinize and examine it and ask questions related to descriptions you've provided so far, which detail how $40 million breaks down into segments of $8 million and $32 million losses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1635]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1640]

[ Page 13906 ]

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

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

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

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

Hon. M. Coell: I think the important thing for the member to know is that this plan is a negotiated agreement between government and its employees. One of those agreements is that we keep the plan whol