2005 Legislative Session: 6th Session, 37th 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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 30

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Education funding

D. Hayer

Daylight saving time and energy

conservation

B. Suffredine

Multiple sclerosis

W. Cobb

Oral Questions

Investigation of child deaths and

injuries

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Hagen

J. Kwan

Funding for child advocacy

J. Brar

Hon. S. Hagen

Cancer clinic in Prince George

P. Nettleton

Hon. S. Bond

Petitions

C. Clark

B. Suffredine

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

B. Lekstrom

Second Reading of Bills

University of Victoria Foundation Act

(Bill Pr401)

J. Bray

Committee of the Whole House

University of Victoria Foundation Act

(Bill Pr401)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

University of Victoria Foundation Act

(Bill Pr401)

Second Reading of Bills

Pacific Bible College Amendment Act,

2005 (Bill Pr402)

Hon. R.

Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Pacific Bible College Amendment Act,

2005 (Bill Pr402)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Pacific Bible College Amendment Act,

2005 (Bill Pr402)

Second Reading of Bills

British Columbia Wharf Operators'

Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2005 (Bill Pr403)

L. Mayencourt

Committee of the Whole House

British Columbia Wharf Operators'

Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2005 (Bill Pr403)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

British Columbia Wharf Operators'

Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2005 (Bill Pr403)

Second Reading of Bills

Westco Insurance Company Act, 1966

Repeal Act, 2005 (Bill Pr404)

R. Sultan

Committee of the Whole House

Westco Insurance Company Act, 1966

Repeal Act, 2005 (Bill Pr404)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Westco Insurance Company Act, 1966

Repeal Act, 2005 (Bill Pr404)

Second Reading of Bills

The John Hussey Foundation (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2005 (Bill Pr405)

H. Long

Committee of the Whole House

The John Hussey Foundation (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2005 (Bill Pr405)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

The John Hussey Foundation (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2005 (Bill Pr405)

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act (No. 1), 2005 (Bill 20)

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

J. Kwan

J. Brar

[ Page 12395 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2005

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

R. Masi: It's my pleasure today to introduce the immediate

past president of my riding in North Delta, Chris McCuaig. Chris is accompanied

by her husband, Don Hecker. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Murray: I would like to welcome into the House

today Dave and Brenda Burton. Dave is a senior executive at Scott Paper, which

is a very important business and a major employer in New Westminster. Could the

House please make them very welcome.

I would also like the group to welcome Maria Cardona, who's a

second-year political science student at UVic with a focus on international

studies; and also Barbara Hibbins, who's the executive director, information

technology security, in the office of the chief information officer, which is a

responsibility of my ministry. Barbara is the chair of the national committee on

information security, so she's a real leader in protecting government networks

from viruses and other attacks. Could the House please make Maria and Barbara

very welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the House there are two

individuals I'd like to recognize. The first is a grade 11 co-op student from

Lord Tweedsmuir in my riding, Steen Hof. Steen has been working in my office

that are happening in government. We are also joined by Caroline Elliot, more

affectionately known as Boomer to her friends and family. Boomer is here as an

would the House make them welcome.

H. Bloy: I have a constituent from the riding of

Burquitlam, Mel Torrance, who is with us today. He was with the Canadian Lung

Association, and they made a presentation to a number of members in this House

this morning. If the House would please make him welcome.

Hon. J. Les: It's my pleasure this afternoon to welcome

several guests from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. They are Mr. Rajiv De

Silva, who's the CEO; M. Jean-Charles Hebert, who's the vice-president for

health policy and reimbursement; and Mr. Mehmood Alibhai, who's the director for

health policy in western Canada. Would the House please make them welcome.

W. Cobb: It's my pleasure today to recognize three visitors

to the Legislature representing the Multiple Sclerosis Society. We have with us

Paul McNamara, who is the director of the capital regional chapter; Bonnie

Poshak, who we met last year and is with client services; and Diane Post.

They're all members of the MS Society. I ask the House to please make them

welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: In my riding I have some exceptional high

schools. Today one is visiting us with a class of grade 9 honour students. But

before that, I just want to say that I was there at Lambrick Park Secondary

School earlier this month when their Diamonds for Excellence program was

highlighted. This is a program that offers young students an opportunity to

excel in the diamond fields such as baseball and softball. We were given quite a

wonderful display.

Today the grade 9 honour students class is here — there are about

30 of them — with vice-principal, Mr. Stu Barber. They're excellent young people

with exceptional minds. I would also like to say a special hello to a neighbour,

Cassandra Lum, who is with them. Would the House make them all very welcome this

afternoon.

[1410]

R. Lee: I'm pleased today to introduce two visitors from

Burnaby North. In the House we have Mira Malatestinic, president of the Celtic

Heritage Society of Canada, and Bob Garlick, chief creative officer. They are

meeting with the Minister of Small Business and Economic Development. The Celtic

Heritage Society of Canada is a non-profit organization with a mission to

celebrate, nurture and preserve Celtic heritage and culture in the communities,

the provinces and the nation. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: I would like to introduce, welcome and thank three

very important individuals in the gallery today. They are our interns: Andre

Vallillee, Amy Higginbotham and James Steidle.

We, the opposition caucus, have developed a reputation as the

little caucus that could. In great measure, it is as a result of our interns who

do a tremendous amount of work behind the scenes, as their predecessors before

them. Our thanks from the NDP opposition caucus to our interns for all the great

work they contribute to holding the government to account.

B. Suffredine: I have somewhat of a remote introduction

today. It's sort of a congratulations. The Canadian men's curling championships

are taking place in Edmonton. They are just past the twelfth round.

The British Columbia team in that Tim Hortons Brier is not only

from my riding; it's a team made up of people from throughout the riding. Deane

Horning, who's a woodlands accountant from Nakusp, is the skip. The third is

Fred Thomson. Fred is enjoying an unusual opportunity to be popular, because he

is a bylaw enforcement officer in the city of Nelson. Don Freschi is the second,

and Robert Nobert is the lead.

[ Page 12396 ]

An Hon. Member: Hurry.

B. Suffredine: Hurry hard. Grant Fines is the fifth, and

Terry Bublitz is the coach. They're still in the running for the championship.

They're not in the lead at the moment, but if we all cheer them on, perhaps they

will win for British Columbia.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) EDUCATION FUNDING

D. Hayer: Our government has achieved great results in

education over the past four years. Our focus on student achievement helped

encourage all of our students to realize all their potential and experience true

success.

We have a system that encourages our students to achieve their

very best. For example, in Surrey 86 percent of staff are satisfied with the

system. That is not an idle statistic. I have met with the Surrey teachers

union, teachers, parents, administrators and other concerned individuals. They

understand this government is working for our students. I brought the Minister

of Education to my riding to meet with the principals, teachers, parents and

others who care about education.

Students in my district are now doing better in reading, writing

and math. Grade 7 writing results have improved by 13 percent since 2003. We

have many schools with a foreign language learning program, two fine arts

schools, two Montessori schools, and programs in kindergarten and grade 1 to

help second-language families encourage and support their children's literacy.

Some 5,000 students are in career programs, plus 166 in apprentice programs.

Last year 81 percent of Surrey students completed high school, up from 76

percent in '99.

We are putting more money, more resources and more effort into our

schools, our students and our future than ever before. This year $231 million is

going to special needs students, and next year the funding will increase by

another $28 million. We are investing $150 million next year for literacy

programs, libraries, arts, music and learning resources, plus $40 million more

for literacy programs this year. It is helping to make real, positive changes.

Since 2000-01, public school funding has increased by more than

$400 million. Yet despite some 30,000 fewer students today than when we took

office, we still have about the same number of teachers and schools per student

as this province had in 1995-96. Our government has accomplished remarkable

things for our children, for our province and for our future.

[1415]

DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME

AND ENERGY CONSERVATION

B. Suffredine: Meeting our Kyoto commitment is a worthy

challenge. The other day the Green Party told us to listen to that old Peter,

Paul and Mary song. They said: "The answer is blowing in the wind." Wind energy

must be considered, but it has challenges around reliability and storage. When

you come from farm country like the Creston valley, you usually pick the

low-hanging fruit first rather than try to climb the tree.

One sure way to save energy that has been known for years was

identified by the National Research Council in 1981, almost 25 years ago. They

reported that staying on daylight saving time during winter would save about 1

percent in total electricity consumption and perhaps as high as 3 percent in

non-industrial communities. They found that the peak power loading would not

shift to the evening, so producers would be able to avoid brownout conditions

with lower generating capacity.

By February 15 sunrise times across Canada are such that no one

would notice the difference. Sunset times will be noticeably later, so we can

stay outdoors to enjoy health and other benefits like that late round of golf.

If we're serious about energy conservation, it's time to consider

the options. This is an easy step towards meeting our One-Tonne Challenge to

reduce our annual greenhouse gas emissions by one metric ton each. I'll post

their report on my webpage and invite everyone to read it.

This fruit is ripe for the picking. Don't let it blow down and

spoil. I challenge everyone concerned about energy, including the Green Party,

to get behind the National Research Council recommendation. It's time for a

change.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

W. Cobb: First I want to thank my colleague the member for

Burquitlam for giving up his spot today.

We're all wearing carnations today in recognition of Multiple

Sclerosis Month, and I thank you all for your participation. Actually, May is MS

Month, but since we will not be here this session in May, I thought it important

to further the cause of MS awareness by helping distribute these flowers today.

The flowers help draw attention to the effects of MS on more than

8,000 British Columbians and on more than 50,000 Canadians, and are used as a

fundraiser to assist in finding a cure. One person's diagnosis affects so many

more. Family members, friends and employers are greatly affected by the

condition. My family can attest to that, as my wife suffers from the disease.

MS is episodic, quite often invisible and often progressive. It is

usually a debilitating condition that can affect speech, vision, strength,

coordination, balance and other sensory and motor functions. This disease

affects different people in different ways and therefore makes the cause and the

cure much harder to diagnose.

You can thank the MS Society, the local chapter, for donating the

flowers you're wearing today. Normally, we would have to pay for these flowers,

but we lucked out today. I thank them for their contribution.

[ Page 12397 ]

Thanks to the visitors in the gallery — Paul, Bonnie and Diane —

for your work and support for individuals who suffer from MS. Good luck on your

carnation drive.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION OF

CHILD DEATHS AND INJURIES

J. MacPhail: Yesterday three child welfare experts went

public with their concerns about how this government investigates the deaths and

injuries of children. The former children's commissioner said that if there was

another tragic case like Matthew Vaudreuil, we would never know, because the

independent watchdogs have been eliminated.

Can the Minister of Children and Family Development tell us how

many children known to the ministry have died or been injured since they fired

the independent watchdogs?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, I'd like to say that I've been

the minister since September of 2004 and have not had any requests from any of

the three individuals that were made public yesterday about need for a meeting,

or even requesting a meeting. I can tell you that since September of '04, I've

had the opportunity to discuss with a lot of groups and individuals issues that

my ministry deals with — including Judge Gove and Jane Morley, the current child

and youth officer.

[1420]

I am more than happy to meet with these three women. As a matter

of fact, yesterday I called their offices to arrange a time that would be

convenient for them. I can tell you this. We are committed to keeping B.C.'s

children safe. We're committed to keeping families together, but at the end of

the day, a child's safety always takes precedence over everything else.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary

question.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm actually shocked that the minister

didn't answer my question. I asked a very serious question about children known

to the ministry who have died. He gets up and reads a statement completely

disregarding those three experts' concerns.

It used to be that the public could get the number of accidental

deaths, suicides, homicides and natural causes not only of children in care but

children known to the ministry, as was Matthew Vaudreuil. Matthew Vaudreuil was

a person known to the ministry, not a child in care. That information has been

removed from the ministry's website — whatever little information there was.

This is the kind of information we used to get from the independent children's

commissioner.

Why is it that this government is not giving that information now

to the public? No more ministerial statements that cover up.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S. Hagen: I can assure the House and all British

Columbians that children in care continue to be safe. We have not experienced a

rise in child-in-care-related fatalities. Every fatality of a child in care is

thoroughly investigated with accompanying recommendations. I'm confident we are

well served by the coroner's office, the child and youth officer and the

ombudsman, in addition to the work done by our ministry to track significant

cases and review practices.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplementary.

J. MacPhail: By the minister's own information, the number

of fatalities of children in care rose from the last year reported from the

previous year. They rose by 33 percent. So I don't know what the minister was

just doing to this House when he made that statement.

We're not just talking about children in care here. As the former

children's commissioner said yesterday, measuring success by the number of

children in care tells us nothing about whether kids are safer. All it tells us

is that there are fewer children in care. Why? Because the province now has no

way of independently investigating the deaths and injuries of children.

Again to the minister: the coroner, by admission, doesn't have the

teeth to investigate the deaths of children. If the government's child advocate

doesn't have that power, then how can this minister have any confidence that he

is telling the facts that fewer children in care improves the safety of at-risk

kids? What evidence does he have of that?

Hon. S. Hagen: It doesn't matter which side of the House

you sit on, whether you're in the opposition or in the government. We all care

about kids. Anyone who tries to paint this as a partisan side is doing us a

disservice. I don't care what your political affiliation is. All of us,

regardless of what party we belong to, care about B.C. kids.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Please continue.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. S. Hagen: I have five children of my own. For

opposition members to suggest that the government doesn't care about kids is

total nonsense and obviously political. I can tell you this….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we will have order in this

House, or we will not continue with question period.

[ Page 12398 ]

Hon. S. Hagen: I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, and I'll tell

all British Columbians this. Nobody in this government cares more about the kids

of this province than the Premier. That's been exemplified by the programs that

we've put in place, such as early screening for dental, vision and hearing; the

Ready, Set, Learn program for preschool-age kids; and the early literacy

programs. These are just a few.

J. Kwan: If the Premier really did care about children,

particularly children at risk, he would have answered the letter and met with

the three expert child and family advocates, and he didn't. He ignored them.

[1425]

As the minister knows, there have been recent and tragic cases

involving the deaths and injury of children — Sherry Charlie, Kayla, and the

twins in the lower mainland. If we still had an independent watchdog or

watchdogs, there would have been a full investigation into the circumstances

surrounding each of these cases. The government and the public would know what

happened and what must be learned. But now we will never get to those answers.

Can the Minister of Children and Family Development explain why he

thinks this is acceptable when we have cases where children have died or been

injured?

Hon. S. Hagen: To put this into context, we currently have

9,000 children in care in the province of British Columbia. Yes, every once in a

while something terrible happens. Our condolences and our sympathies go out to

the relatives and families of those people.

Having said that, I have the utmost confidence in our social

workers, our front-line workers and our foster parents, who every day support

these kids we have in care. As I said before, I'm confident that we are well

served by the coroner's office, the child and youth officer as well as the

ombudsman, in addition to the work done by our ministry to track the significant

cases and to review practices.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a

supplementary question.

J. Kwan: The independent watchdogs, and their role

involving children and families and issues around injuries and deaths, have been

eliminated by this Liberal government. The circumstances surrounding the deaths

and injuries of these children cry out for an independent investigation. But

thanks to this government's broken promise, the public won't get answers. It is

not that the government's child advocate is not doing her very best. It is that

this government didn't give her the tools or the power to protect children.

Again to the minister: how can he expect the public to have

confidence in the child protection system and the minister's answers, when no

one has the power to independently investigate the deaths and critical injuries

of children in this province?

Hon. S. Hagen: I know that in this House, we all agree on a

fundamental issue, and that is keeping our children safe. But there's more than

one way to do that, and there's more than one way to have a good system that

works. Frankly, the previous system was flawed, in my view. Too much money was

spent on management and administration of three separate offices. There were

crossovers and a lack of clear mandate for any one of them. I am confident in

our child and youth officer…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. S. Hagen: …in the coroner's office and in the office

of the ombudsman to make sure that our children are safe.

FUNDING FOR CHILD ADVOCACY

J. Brar: What we're hearing here is not a straight answer.

That's what I was hearing about Surrey Memorial. It's the same kind of answers

we hear today about this mystery.

In the letter the government claimed it never received, child

protection experts also say that the impact of budget cuts to the Ministry of

Children and Family Development can't be known because there is no

accountability in the system. Because this government is stifling debate on the

budget, they're running from these questions in this House.

Will the Minister of Children and Family Development admit that

since 2001, the government has cut over $200 million from the Ministry of

Children and Family Development?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order, please.

Order!

Will the member please state his question.

J. Brar: Mr. Speaker, the question is pretty simple. Will

the Minister of Children and Family Development tell this House whether this

government has cut over $200 million from the Ministry of Children and Family

Development since 2001 or not?

[1430]

Hon. S. Hagen: Mr. Speaker, I don't think this is a budget

debate. But I want to categorically repeat that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S. Hagen: I have absolute total confidence in our

front-line workers in the coroner's office, the child and youth officer, and the

ombudsman's office to investigate any of the wrongdoings that may happen.

[ Page 12399 ]

Mr. Speaker: Member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge has a

supplementary.

J. Brar: These are very interesting questions — no straight

answers, no specifics. One of the things I learned as a new MLA here is that you

can't get any answers from this government — not a great experience but a

learning. If we were allowed a debate, we could explore further what's happening

in the ministry. But the fact is that this government has falsely inflated the

increase by transferring child care money into its budget.

Again to the minister: following yesterday's letter from three of

the most respected child welfare experts in the country, will they finally

accept that his government is failing at-risk children and reinstate an

independent child protection watchdog?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I stated previously, I contacted the

folks yesterday and asked them when they could meet. We'll meet at their

earliest convenience.

I also want to remind the House that we currently have 9,000

children in care, which is 15 percent less than what we had in 2001. That's a

stark contrast to the 45 percent rise in the number of children in care between

'95 and '01.

CANCER CLINIC IN PRINCE GEORGE

P. Nettleton: What were the urgent, pressing northern

health issues and circumstances that prompted the Minister of Health Services

and the junior minister of mining to lobby the Finance minister for approval of

a cancer clinic for Prince George?

In light of the final report by the northern cancer control

strategy, which in essence says a cancer clinic is not feasible for Prince

George, I ask the Minister of Health Services whether she did not have her facts

straight before lobbying for the clinic. Or was it merely to be the buildup to

another pre-election promise, which now appears to be broken?

Hon. S. Bond: As a lifelong resident of northern British

Columbia, I have been and will continue to be a passionate advocate for

improving access for all northerners. In fact, the member for Prince

George–Omineca should well know the process. The report has not yet gone to the

board of the northern health authority. In fact, I haven't received the report.

In checking with the Premier, in checking with the previous Minister of Health

Services, not once did the member for Prince George–Omineca make representation

to the Minister of Health Services about this issue.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. Clark: I rise to table a petition forwarded to me

and signed by 13,866 British Columbians supporting the provision of a tax credit

for the cost of enrolling one's children in sports and the arts in British

Columbia.

B. Suffredine: I rise to present a petition on behalf of

residents of the Arrow Lakes asking that the riding name of Nelson-Creston be

considered for change to Nelson–Creston–Arrow Lakes.

[1435]

Reports from Committees

B. Lekstrom: I have the honour to present the report of the

Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills.

I would move that the report be read and received.

Motion approved.

Law Clerk:

"March 9, 2005:

"Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical

Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"(1) that the

preamble to Bill Pr401, intituled University of

Victoria Foundation Act, has been proved, and the committee recommends that the

bill proceed to second reading.

"(2) that the

preamble to Bill Pr402, intituled Pacific Bible

College Amendment Act, 2005, has been proved, and the committee recommends that

the bill proceed to second reading.

"(3) that the

preamble to Bill Pr403, intituled British Columbia

Wharf Operators' Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2005, has been proved,

and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

"(4) that the

preamble to Bill Pr404, intituled Westco Insurance

Company Act, 1966 Repeal Act, 2005, has been proved, and the committee

recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

"(5) that the

preamble to Bill Pr405, intituled The John Hussey

Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2005, has been proved, and the committee

recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted.

B. Lekstrom, Chairman."

B. Lekstrom: Hon. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House

to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading of Bill Pr401.

[ Page 12400 ]

Second Reading of Bills

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA

FOUNDATION ACT

J. Bray: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The University of Victoria Foundation Act will accomplish three

separate tasks. One, it will combine three pieces of enabling legislation into

one. Two, it will allow more modern investing activities to occur including full

investment, return investing — similar to other foundations that invest on

behalf of organizations. Three, the act will expand the scope by which the UVic

foundation can engage in capital fundraising and capital expenditures.

Motion approved.

J. Bray: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of

the Whole House to be considered forthwith by leave.

Bill Pr401, University of Victoria Foundation Act, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA

FOUNDATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill Pr401; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

J. Bray: I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:40 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr401, University of Victoria Foundation Act, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call Bill Pr402.

Second Reading of Bills

PACIFIC BIBLE COLLEGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Hon. R. Coleman: I move, on behalf of the member for

Coquitlam-Maillardville, that the bill be now read a second time.

This is a name change from Pacific Bible College to Pacific Life

Bible College and has been before the Committee of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: By leave, I move that the bill be referred

to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr402, Pacific Bible College Amendment Act, 2005, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

PACIFIC BIBLE COLLEGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

The House in committee on Bill Pr402; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:42 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr402, Pacific Bible College Amendment Act, 2005, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading of Bill Pr403.

[ Page 12401 ]

Second Reading of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA

WHARF OPERATORS' ASSOCIATION

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2005

L. Mayencourt: I move that the bill be now read a second

time.

Motion approved.

L. Mayencourt: By leave, I move that the bill be referred

to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr403, British Columbia Wharf Operators' Association

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2005, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BRITISH COLUMBIA

WHARF OPERATORS' ASSOCIATION

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2005

The House in committee on Bill Pr403; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

L. Mayencourt: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:44 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr403, British Columbia Wharf Operators' Association

(Corporate Restoration) Act, 2005, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

[1445]

Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading of Bill Pr404.

Second Reading of Bills

WESTCO INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1966

REPEAL ACT, 2005

Mr. Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill Pr404.

R. Sultan: Hon. Speaker, by leave, I move the bill be

referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Mr. Speaker: Hang on. The question is second reading of

Bill Pr404.

Motion approved.

R. Sultan: This bill involves a company that's been in

operation since 1996. It's now dormant. It's a subsidiary of the very large and

respected Industrial Alliance Pacific Life Insurance Company. Westco has no

assets, no liabilities, no operations and is dormant. The parent company wishes

to dissolve it. This is the only means by which that can be accomplished.

Hon. Speaker, by leave, I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr404, Westco Insurance Company Act, 1966 Repeal Act, 2005,

read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

WESTCO INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1966

REPEAL ACT, 2005

The House in committee on Bill Pr404; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

R. Sultan: I move that the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:48 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 12402 ]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr404, Westco Insurance Company Act, 1966 Repeal Act, 2005,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading of Bill Pr405.

Second Reading of Bills

THE JOHN HUSSEY FOUNDATION

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2005

H. Long: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a

second time, with no comments.

Motion approved.

H. Long: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr405, The John Hussey Foundation (Corporate Restoration)

Act, 2005, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

THE JOHN HUSSEY FOUNDATION

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2005

The House in committee on Bill Pr405; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 2:50 p.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

H. Long: I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:50 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill Pr405, The John Hussey Foundation (Corporate Restoration)

Act, 2005, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 20, interim

supply.

Committee of the Whole House

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2005

The House in committee on Bill 20; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 2:53 p.m.

section 1.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister tell us how the over $13

billion is being divided up over the six months?

Hon. C. Hansen: What this provides for is 6/12 of the total

appropriation for the year. There's not a requirement in terms of interim supply

to have that divided down to any further subgroup, according to the precedents

that have been followed in this House.

J. MacPhail: I'm not asking about precedents. This

government is asking for six months of a free ride on money. How much is the

money? Let me see; $13,139,500,000 is what we're discussing here, Mr. Chair. I'm

asking the minister what his government's plans are to allocate that.

Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, it is as has been set out in the

service plans for each ministry. The appropriation is 6/12, and the total

appropriation by ministries collectively over that six-month period cannot

exceed this allocation that is being requested in this interim supply bill.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister please read into the record

what each ministry is being allocated out of this interim supply?

[1455]

Hon. C. Hansen: It is anticipated that each ministry would

be allocated about 50 percent of their annual appropriation, as is set out in

the estimates documents that were tabled on February 15. They would be incurring

those expenses in accordance with the service plans that were tabled on the same

date.

J. MacPhail: The service plans don't outline the

month-by-month expenditures, and of course, we'll never know the validity of

those service plans, because we don't get to debate them.

Is the minister somehow suggesting that each ministry is allocated

the money every month on an equal basis?

Hon. C. Hansen: The ministries are not appropriated monthly

allocations. That's not the case in a normal year, and it wouldn't be the case

this year. The Ministry of Finance monitors very closely the spending

[ Page 12403 ]

of ministries. Not all ministries spend exactly 1/12 of their appropriation

each and every month. There are differing demands on differing ministries

depending on the time of year, so it's not a 1/12 allocation.

As is the tradition with interim supply, the total aggregate

expenditure by government cannot exceed the amount that is being appropriated in

this interim supply bill at any point during this six-month period.

J. MacPhail: Exactly how does that work? What's a budget

letter going to look like to a health authority?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's our anticipation that the health

authorities would be given authority to actually commit and disburse funding up

to 50 percent of their annual allocation. So they have to manage their affairs

within their allocations.

J. MacPhail: I've seen budget letters to health

authorities. What the minister just said doesn't make any sense at all. I'll be

getting into lots of specific questions. I thought this was going to be a slam

dunk, this little

section here, where the minister would actually tell us what

their plans are for the next six months.

This is $13 billion of tax moneys, and it turns out the government

doesn't have any plans. Hey, here's 50 percent. Use it as you see fit. In the

health authorities there is not a regular flow of expenditures. In fact, there

could be some health authorities where in the first six months….

Well, there could be some ministries — let me put it this way, Mr.

Chair — specifically, some of the human resource ministries, who in the first

six months would spend more than 50 percent of their annual allocation. What

happens in that particular case?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's why it is not a specific

1/12allocation to each ministry each and every month. Different ministries have

different demands on them depending on the time of year it is. If there's one

ministry that is going to require more than 6/12 of its anticipated full

appropriation for the year, then there has to be an offsetting underexpenditure

by other ministries.

There are some ministries that do have more expenditures in the

first six months of a fiscal year. There are other ministries that typically

have their expenditures towards the end of the fiscal year. In the course of

this six-month period those will balance out. The obligation that we, as a

government and as a Ministry of Finance, have is to ensure that government

spending across all of these entities does not go even one dime over the amount

we are asking for in this appropriation.

[1500]

J. MacPhail: Who is going to know about that? Who

makes those decisions for a half-year? Is it cabinet? Is it cabinet that is

going to be allocation, ministry to ministry? When are they going to meet? Just

tell me the process, Mr. Chair, about how that gets worked out.

Hon. C. Hansen: The management of those allocations is done

by staff within the Ministry of Finance. We will be tracking expenditures by

ministry, as we always do. We will be putting out a quarterly report, so we will

need to make sure that we can tabulate results at the end of the first quarter,

as we normally do. I think if you go back and look at quarterly reports that

have been issued over the last four years, you will see that not all ministries

are spending, say, 3/12 of their appropriation at the end of the first quarterly

report. This year will be no different. That is a process that is managed within

the ministry itself.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but those ministries had budgets and

budget letters.

Let me ask the minister: have budget letters been prepared for

'05-06?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

J. MacPhail: That's all I'm asking for. What do the budget

letters say?

Hon. C. Hansen: The draft language which has been put in

place for the budget letters that will go out to ministries, subject to the

passage of this legislation, is that they would have an appropriation of

approximately 6/12 of what their annual appropriation would be as set out in the

estimates. They are required to manage within that on a month-to-month basis and

to report to the ministry on a month-to-month basis.

As we identify ministries that have costs that are more

front-loaded during the fiscal year, the ministry will then identify other

ministries that would have their costs more skewed towards the end of the fiscal

year. Those would be managed off to make sure we stay within this appropriation.

J. MacPhail: When will Treasury Board meet?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't think the question's germane to the

debate we're having today.

J. MacPhail: Oh, I get it. Is it under his government that

Treasury Board doesn't play any role? Is that why it's not germane? I'm trying

to find out who's managing this $13 billion. Who's responsible for managing it?

The minister just said it was the bureaucrats. Sorry; that won't do it for the

public.

The government is already denying a line-by-line debate of the

budget. They're actually giving themselves six months of money, and the minister

just said it will be the bureaucracy that will manage that. Really. Is the

minister saying Treasury Board plays no role in this?

Hon. C. Hansen: The role of Treasury Board over the

past 12 months has been to review the service plans of each and every ministry

and agency of government, to review their spending priorities and to determine

what their allocation should be for the coming year.

[ Page 12404 ]

Those numbers are all in the budget documents that were tabled on February

[1505]

Treasury Board has done a very thorough review of each and every

ministry and agency leading up to Budget 2005, and now we are engaged in a

process of establishing interim supply. The principles behind this interim

supply bill are not any different than the principles that are behind any

interim supply bill that has been passed in this House. In fact, I think there

has been hardly a year when this House has not used interim supply. I think the

only examples are when the government ran on special warrants, which is

something that we said we will not do, because we feel that it should have the

approval of this House.

The role of Treasury Board is no different this year than it has

been any other year. Once the review of spending plans and the review of service

plans have been completed by Treasury Board and the budget has been tabled, we

will approve an appropriation for six months of the year, and then we will be

relying on a very talented and qualified public service to administer that.

J. MacPhail: Let me clearly outline for the minister what

the difference is. We are weeks away from the end of the fiscal year expiring.

There are at least six weeks left in this sitting, and the budget's not going to

be passed. There's going to be an election within the next couple of months. The

writ won't be returned until June. Of course, I guess this minister says

Treasury Board doesn't play any role anyway. In the interim period the

difference is that this government's going out and making all sorts of spending

promises in the election — spending promises that have not been passed because

the budget hasn't been passed.

The '05-06 budget has all sorts of new programs in it, new

spending commitments, that have not been made legal. I'm trying to find out from

the minister who's keeping an eye on not funding those programs until the new

budget is passed.

Hon. C. Hansen: There is absolutely nothing to prevent

government from implementing new initiatives as are set out in the service

plans, and I think that is something new to the traditions of this House. An

innovation that certainly this government is very proud of is that we bring in

three-year service plans for each and every ministry, where they set out their

program priorities for the coming fiscal year. Those are tabled before this

House well in advance of the start of the fiscal year. Assuming that this House

passes this interim supply bill, the government will have the authority

necessary to proceed with the programs as set out in those service plans.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister suggesting somehow that when

this Legislature passes Bill 20, the service plans have been debated and

approved too? Is he going as far as to say that?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the service plans are part of a

level of transparency that we have never seen before anywhere, certainly in

Canada. It's a level of transparency that I know other jurisdictions are taking

note of and something that we're very proud of. It's a level of detail that has

never been presented to this House before, and it's never been presented to the

public before. On February 15 every one of those service plans was posted on the

website for everyone to see.

This interim supply is different in a few respects, and I think

the member noted some of those. Because of the time line we have with regard to

the budget and the timing of the return of the writ and also the new

requirements — which have never been there before in any election year in

history — regarding the level of detail that has to be presented to this House

after an election, it is going to take a bit longer.

It is not without precedent, but it is unusual that six months of

supply would be requested.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's without precedent in any government

I've been involved in — completely without precedent.

The minister keeps referring to 1991. We weren't in government in

1991. Mr. Chair, just to be clear: any government I've belonged to has never

done six months of interim supply.

Let me just go back to this. Is the minister somehow suggesting

that today we are debating the service plans ministry by ministry? I welcome

that.

Hon. C. Hansen: We are debating interim supply, which is a

normal procedure in this Legislature.

[1510]

J. MacPhail: No, no. When I asked what programs will be

funded, he said they're all outlined in the service plans and that spending will

be according to those service plans.

By the way, it was Paul Ramsey that brought in legislation

demanding service plans every year — Paul Ramsey. He was a New Democrat. He was

the Minister of Finance from '99 to 2001, and this government continued the

practice, so stop trying to take credit for it. The government didn't introduce

this practice. It was Paul Ramsey. Paul Ramsey implemented it as well, because

I, as minister, had to do them.

Just let me be clear. The minister just said the service plans

detail how money will be spent. Now, the service plans are part of Budget

'05-06. Is the minister suggesting that we're passing, let's see, 6/12 of the

'05-06 budget? Is that his

interpretation of what interim supply is?

Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer is yes. We are seeking

appropriation for a portion of the budget as presented on February 15.

J. MacPhail: I can't believe this. This government is

deeming to have authority for a half year of the '05-06 budget based on a few

hours of debate. Is that what the

[ Page 12405 ]

minister is saying? That when he shuts down the Legislature tomorrow at 5:30

p.m., he's going to assume that a half a year of the '05-06 budget has been

approved by this Legislature? Is that what he's saying?

Hon. C. Hansen: Interim supply, as I mentioned earlier, is

a tradition in this House. In recent election years, actually, the tradition has

been to ask for 4/12 of the appropriation for that year's budget. Because of

some of the changes that have been made to the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act, it would be extremely difficult for government to be able to

come back and present the estimates that are required by the legislation in any

period shorter than what we are asking for in this piece of legislation.

My preference, to be honest to the member…. I would like to have

been able to do it faster. I would have liked to have been able to come back to

this House within four months of the start of the fiscal year. Because of the

mechanics of what is now required, we realized that would be extremely difficult

to do. It is because of those considerations that we are asking for 6/12 of the

appropriation in this particular interim supply.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Let's get clear what the mechanics are.

The government is shutting down the House, the Legislature, six weeks before its

conclusion. They're denying budget debate, and they know when the election is.

Those are the mechanics this government is now using to justify somehow this

ridiculous procedure we're going through.

Interim supply is about getting the authority to continue paying

the bills of current programs as budget debate proceeds to its conclusion.

That's what normally happens. But, no, this government refuses to pass a budget,

is demanding interim supply and is going to go to the polls. And somehow this

minister is now standing up and interpreting interim supply as if it's the

authority for a budget in the future that has not been passed. Perhaps he could

cite parliamentary rules that give him that right — right now.

Hon. C. Hansen: Interim supply is to provide authority of

the Legislature for the spending programs of government. I think one of the

things we made very clear is that we will not use special warrants in the way

that previous governments have used them. We will come to this House and seek

the authority of the House using interim supply, using full supply and using

supplementary estimates rather than past practice around special warrants —

where it was, in fact, just the cabinet that by decree decided that government

could spend money in areas it felt were priorities.

If the member is interpreting interim supply as being only an

authority for continuation of programs as they have previously existed, she is

not accurate in that

interpretation.

[1515]

J. MacPhail: That actually is the rule from Beauchesne's —

Beauchesne and MacMinn. Perhaps the minister could stand up and tell me where

his

interpretation derives from. Stand up.

Hon. C. Hansen: We have had individuals look at the

parameters of interim supply. It is my understanding that the requirement is for

government to stay within the appropriation as set out in this. There is nothing

to restrict government from initiating new programs or new initiatives, as was

the case previously, the way the previous government used special warrants — and

interim supply, for that matter — in years gone by. As I mentioned, I don't

think there is a year in the history of this province, in recent history at

least, that interim supply was not used as a vehicle to provide appropriation.

J. MacPhail: This minister has absolutely no evidence that

previous governments used interim supply to fund new programs — none. Absolutely

none, because the budgets were being debated and passed in the time that interim

supply was in place. So none. He also doesn't have any parliamentary authority

to suggest that new programs are allowed to be funded out of interim supply.

Here's the scenario that we've got just so far. This government is

shutting down this House tomorrow — tomorrow. They're stifling debate.

Guillotining debate. That's what it's called: guillotining debate. They're going

to walk away from this with no budget passed, but they're going to assume

they've got authority that half the budget has been legally passed. That's what

the minister just said — half the budget.

It's shameful. There has never, ever been any jurisdiction that

has interpreted it in that fashion or used it in that fashion. Perhaps the

minister could tell me the legal opinion that gives him that right.

Hon. C. Hansen: I might just remind the member of some of

the precedent that has been established in this House. In fact, if you want to

go back to…. She said I shouldn't talk about 1991. Well, in 1991 the Socred

government of the day passed interim supply. The NDP government got elected that

year and never did come back to the House. They actually ran virtually the whole

year on special warrants, which I think is a travesty of the authority of the

House.

If we go back just to the last election, which I know the member

remembers vividly, the House was called into session on March 14. The budget,

including the main estimates, was introduced on March 15. The budget debate was

concluded on March 20, which was actually very quick, because there were only

two days and three sittings of the House on the budget debate that year.

Supplementary estimates were introduced on March 22, and the interim supply was

passed on March 29 with 4/12.

That was using standing order 81 to a greater extent than we are

today, because they used standing order 81 to put through all three readings of

the interim supply bill in one day. We are putting it through over the normal

three-day minimum for a bill to go through the

[ Page 12406 ]

House. There was absolutely no debate on the main estimates that were

introduced on March 15. The House was adjourned on April 11. The Legislature was

dissolved on April 18, when an election was called, and election day was May 16.

J. MacPhail: It's not good for the minister to enter into

this debate. It was the then Liberal opposition who refused to debate the

estimates because they wanted to get to an election. They actually refused to

debate. Now, perhaps the minister doesn't remember that, but that was exactly

what they did. There was the opportunity to debate.

Then let me ask the minister: could he demonstrate where that

interim supply provided spending for new programs?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think if you look at examples where

interim supply was brought in for an election year where the incumbent

government was re-elected…. If you look at the 1996 example, when there was a

budget tabled and the election was called immediately, we saw a government that

proceeded to implement the programs that flowed from that budget. That was done

solely on the basis of interim supply.

So we have seen interim supply used in non-election years for

three months, and even in the government that she was involved with, they did

not hold back the implementation of programs until full supply was granted by

this House.

[1520]

J. MacPhail: Actually, there's no evidence of that. The

minister stands up here, and there is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever

— none. And he knows it. Anyway….

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: No, I don't make this up. It's 14 years of

experience — 14 years of experience that I wouldn't want that minister to

challenge.

What we have now is this. Not only do we have a government

shutting down debate on a budget, but they're running away, assuming that

they've got unprecedented authority to spend. It's shameful, absolutely

shameful. But if that's what the minister assumes, then we'll debate the service

plans with the ministries that we wish. I'm turning to Health now, the Health

service plan.

Does the minister wish to make time for staff or have staff come

in?

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, the precedent for interim supply in

the House…. This is a bill that's brought forward by the Minister of Finance,

and he has managed that process through committee stage. I have Ministry of

Finance staff here to assist me.

J. MacPhail: That's fine.

We're into Health now, and I've got a series of questions on that.

Thank God I read the service plan, because the minister says we're debating the

service plan right now.

This past winter there was a series of crises in hospitals around

the province, and the government finally had to admit that they were going to

fail in delivering the additional 5,000 long-term care beds by 2006. I'm going

to explore in this debate what went wrong, why the government had to change its

plan and budget, and find out what the government has budgeted for long-term

care.

I'm just going to read some quotes. The 2001 election. The current

Premier and the rest of the Liberals committed to "work with non-profit

societies to build and operate an additional 5,000 new intermediate and

long-term beds by 2006." Then that promise was included in the New Era

document. The former minister responsible for long-term care said on May 26,

2003: "We are well on our way to meeting this commitment. The commitment is to

provide 5,000 beds by the year 2006."

Then here's what the current Minister of Finance said in this

Legislature on March 2, 2004, when he was Minister of Health: "What we are

projecting is that by the end of 2006, we would have a net increase of 5,000

beds." Another quote: "The total tally in the province will show a net increase

by the end of 2006 of 5,000." Another quote: "At the end of the day, we will

meet that target." Then here's one from March 3, 2004, from the current Minister

of Finance: "In fact, we are well on our way." Can the minister explain what

went wrong?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the member has canvassed this

with the current Minister of Health Services in question period. As she has

explained, there are allocations of funds to the health authorities, and out of

this interim supply bill, this will not be any exception. As in the past in

terms of interim supply bills, the regional health authorities will get a

portion of that allocation that can be provided for out of that interim supply

authority. Within that, the health authorities will provide for the

construction, operation and contracting for intermediate and long-term care

facilities.

J. MacPhail: I don't understand what that…. Is that what

the minister's justification is for explaining what went wrong — that they can't

meet the target? There was a backgrounder released on February 9, 2005, from the

public affairs bureau. That's the B.C. Liberal public affairs bureau. Here's

what it said: "Wait times for residential care are down." Can the minister

explain how he knows that and give us the evidence?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm here in my capacity as the Minister of

Finance. I know that the Minister of Health Services has addressed some of those

issues in question period, and I am pleased to respond to questions around the

financial allocation that is being made to the Ministry of Health Services.

[ Page 12407 ]

[1525]

J. MacPhail: No, no. Sorry. There's another flip-flop. He

just said he's determined that this is passing 6/12 of the '05-06 budget. He

says that the service plans are part of this discussion. Got to answer the

questions. Got to answer the questions, based on what his logic was, of what his

interpretation is of what we're debating now.

That's an unacceptable answer. I offered to wait till the proper

officials were here to answer these questions. It's based on his own

interpretation that we're debating the service plans right now under interim

supply. He assumes that he has the authority, after this bill is passed, to fund

any gosh darn program he wishes — new, old or whatever — and we're basing these

questions on that

interpretation he just made.

On February 9, the public affairs bureau issued a backgrounder on

seniors housing and care that said wait times for residential care are down.

Does the government continue to post wait-list data for long-term care?

Hon. C. Hansen: I very carefully want to follow the

precedent that has been established in this House around the scope and parameter

of debate for interim supply. It is a bill that is brought forward by the

Minister of Finance. It is in my capacity as the Minister of Finance that I

would be pleased to answer questions around financial allocations.

J. Kwan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Kwan: I have the great honour today to introduce some 45

students from St. Francis Xavier School in my riding. They're grade 5 students,

visiting the Legislature along with their teacher Ms. Josef. They are here

visiting Victoria, touring Victoria, to learn about the history and traditions,

particularly in terms of what we do.

I hope that the members of this House not only make them welcome

but also actually participate in their best form so as to impress on these young

people what we do in this Legislature in ensuring that the business of the

people is dealt with and how it is dealt with. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Debate Continued

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Is the minister refusing

to answer my questions based on the service plan of the Ministry of Health

Services? If so, how does that jibe with his previous comments?

Hon. C. Hansen: The members opposite are free to ask

whatever questions they would like. I will answer them in my capacity as the

Minister of Finance with regard to the financial allocations that are set out in

the budget documents.

That is in keeping…. I've actually done a bit of digging to make

sure that my understanding of the role of the Minister of Finance in interim

supply debates is consistent with my approach, is consistent with how it's been

approached in years gone by.

J. MacPhail: This is the minister of convenience. On the

one hand, he says: "Oh, we face different circumstances here. There's not enough

time to pass the budget before the election is called. Oh, there's an election

being called. Oh, it's only 19 days into the next fiscal year. That's the basis

on which we can't pass the budget." Then: "Oh, there's no reason why I can't

assume that this is a full half of the budget actually being passed." Now he

claims that he's using precedence to deny answers.

Well, Mr. Chair, we're going to ask our questions, and if this

minister refuses to answer them, shame on his government. He knows full well

that this is the only opportunity to get any of these answers, because they're

going to guillotine us tomorrow. He's even refusing to use this time to answer

questions. He couldn't even answer my question about how much money is going to

the various ministries.

What were we supposed to do — sit here and go: "Is it true that

you're going to take $13,139,500,000 by this legislation"? Based on what he's

saying, that's probably the only question that he would deem appropriate.

Well, sorry. So far he hasn't been able to answer one single

question in the interests of taxpayers. Can't even tell us how the money's being

allocated, ministry by ministry. Won't answer our questions. Oh, and he refuses

to bring in the officials who can answer this question. It's shameful.

[1530]

Let us continue, then. The public affairs bureau backgrounder of

February 9, 2005, also pointed out that in 2002, the government did an inventory

of residential care facilities. The backgrounder goes on at length about some of

the findings: 10 percent needed outright replacement, and 40 percent needed some

upgrading.

If the government knew all of that in 2002, why did they continue

to say everything was just fine until as recently as March 2004?

Hon. C. Hansen: I was in this House when the member asked

the Minister of Health Services those exact questions during question period in

recent weeks. I know that the Minister of Health Services gave a fulsome answer

to that question, and it's on the record in Hansard for the member to

see.

J. MacPhail: No, we haven't referred to the backgrounder in

question period. Let's be clear.

Can the minister not answer that question — 10 percent? I've heard

the minister actually blame everybody but his own government that there was no

planning, that they didn't know the situation they were getting into. They had

no idea when they made the promise of 5,000 additional long-term care beds that

[ Page 12408 ]

things were as bad as they were. There we see the minister's own bureaucracy

— sorry; they're political, the public affairs bureau — reporting that by 2002,

they knew exactly what the circumstances were.

This is different information than the then Minister of Health

Services gave to this House in 2004. If we're debating the Health Services

service plan now, these are exactly the kinds of questions the minister has to

be ready to answer — exactly the same kinds of questions. The minister

specializes in saying that the NDP didn't meet the needs of seniors in the

nineties by building only 1,400 additional beds. Those are the beds that the

government built in the 1990s. How many beds were built by the private sector in

the nineties?

Here's why I asked that question: I quoted from what this minister

said in 2004. He said that they will work with non-profit societies to build and

operate an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006.

The minister then went on to say: "At the end of the day, we will meet that

target."

Can the minister tell me: of those 1,400 beds that he claims were

actually built, how many were built by the private sector?

Hon. C. Hansen: I certainly appreciate the fact that the

member would have liked to have had a full estimates debate on each of these

ministries. This is not what we're debating right now. We're debating interim

supply.

I can tell the member that on page 95 of the estimates that were

tabled on February 15, out of the allocation for the Ministry of Health Services

there is an appropriation for regional health sector funding of $7,157,983,000.

Roughly 50 percent of that would be made available to the health authorities

over the coming six months, subject to the approval of this interim supply bill.

Within that allocation to the regional funding, the health

authorities have the latitude to determine their needs for intermediate and

long-term care beds, and they will make those allocations from their

appropriations accordingly.

J. MacPhail: Of the 1,400 additional beds the Liberals

claim were built in the 1990s, how many of those were built by the private

sector?

[1535]

Hon. C. Hansen: In keeping with the scope of the debate

that has been a tradition in this House around interim supply, I do not have

that level of detail with me. I am certainly prepared to discuss the allocations

as set out in the estimates books, to the extent that the Minister of Finance is

responsible and accountable to have that level of detail.

J. MacPhail: This minister hasn't given one authority to

suggest that what we're passing here is 6/12 of the entire budget of '05-06 and

that then it will become legal. He states that. He states that we're approving

the service plans. He used that argument when I asked him on what basis the $13

billion will be spent. He said: "Look at the service plans."

Then he stood up and claimed that they're the most open and

transparent government and just to look at the service plans. That's the basis

on which the money we're passing now will be spent. Now he's suggesting that, oh

no, we can't talk about those service plans.

Which is it, Mr. Chair? Which is it? Is it interim supply to keep

the current programs going, or is it…? What he now likes to claim is that we're

passing a budget — half a budget — legally that includes all of the service

plans and new programs. He can't have it both ways. If he's now suggesting he

won't answer our questions, then it must be on the basis of the practice of

interim supply, which is only to continue funding that which is already in

place. He can't have it both ways.

Let us just continue. I'd be happy to, because we've got questions

to take us right through till this government will shut us down — right through.

Maybe the minister could get it straight on what his role is here. I don't know

why he's objecting to this. He goes out in the hallway and claims: "Oh, we're

allowing debate on the budget." Just not 6/12 of it.

Mr. Chair, here's the answer about how many of those 1,400 beds

were built by the private sector in the 1990s: zero. That was the number of beds

built by the private sector. Zero. All 1,400 were built by the public sector.

This government has now switched. It doesn't talk about just not-for-profit

beds. He's actually talking about the private sector.

Let me continue to ask some questions. Here's what the

backgrounder, February 9, 2005, says about long-term care: "Since June 2001,

4,081 new and replacement beds or units have been developed or upgraded. These

include residential care beds, providing 24/7 complex care, assisted-living

units and supportive housing units with home support. Taking into account beds

that were replaced, this has resulted in a net gain of 171 seniors beds by May

2005." Wow. There's a real net gain.

Where do I begin? I'm going to try and figure out how this

sentence is correct. It says: "This has resulted in a net gain of 171 seniors

beds by May 2005." I feel badly that we're paying public affairs bureau to write

such a lousy news release. May 2005 is in the future, but they've used the past

tense here. That aside, let's just see: what is the net gain as of today?

Hon. C. Hansen: Sorry; I do apologize to the member. If I

could ask her to repeat the question.

J. MacPhail: Here's the sentence I'm quoting, from the

public affairs bureau. That's a public affairs bureau that has millions and

millions of tax dollars spent on it to inform the public of government

activities. Here's what they say: "Taking into account beds that were replaced,

this has resulted in a net gain of 171 seniors beds by May 2005."

Call me crazy, but I was confused by the tense of that, because

May 2005 is in the future, and they're using the past tense to say that

something has already

[ Page 12409 ]

happened. What I was actually asking was: what is the net gain as of today,

March 9?

Hon. C. Hansen: In keeping with the tradition of interim

supply, I do not have that level of detail. I will certainly take some of these

questions that the member has and bring them to the attention of the respective

ministers.

[1540]

J. MacPhail: This is ridiculous. It is absolutely

ridiculous that the minister is taking this approach. These are legitimate

questions based on his own analysis of what we're doing right now. I disagreed

with his analysis. I disagreed with it. I think that interim supply gives the

government the right to continue funding programs that are already in place. The

minister says no. The minister says he has the right to spend the money on

anything they want — new, old, whatever — and that the service plans are the

guide. He just said that service plans are the guide for how that will be spent

and that this is the most open and accountable government ever.

These are the questions that arise from the service plan. I'm

talking about a backgrounder provided by the government itself to the service

plan. The minister won't answer the questions.

Let me just go right here then. The people of British Columbia are

actually questioning the minister's stats, so we got calls. We got calls in our

office from people — the tiny little office that we have. Two weeks ago my staff

contacted the Minister of Health's office to try and set up a briefing on the

budget. Nobody replied — no one. I sent a note to the Minister of Health

Services across the floor here. I never got a response. So the minister is wrong

when he says that we've raised these issues and got answers. He's dead wrong.

Now we're asking these questions, because it's 6/12 of the budget

that the minister's assuming he can spend on anything he wishes. Well, I guess

he's not going to answer a question on his own public affairs bureau. So let's

go to what the numbers are that we've gleaned as of March 2004. We know these

numbers aren't accurate now — current tense — because further closures of

long-term beds have occurred. But here's the number that the Minister of Health

gave to us in this chamber in 2004.

I'm giving these numbers so that the minister can update us on

what the current numbers are, and then plans for building, and point out how

much money in the budget of this $13 billion will be spent on meeting that

target. That's the line of questioning that I'm pursuing here, Mr. Chair:

figures in '04, what the current figures are and what the budget allocations to

meet their targets are.

In '04 the minister said that in terms of beds that closed since

June 2001, in March of 2004 there were 2,333 long-term care beds closed. The

Minister of Health gave the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant a breakdown of that

by health authority, and here's what it was. Number of beds closed since 2001:

in the interior health authority as of March 2004, 704; Fraser health authority,

433; Vancouver coastal health authority, 360; Vancouver Island health authority,

751; and the northern health authority, 85.

Could the minister update us on what those figures are as of March

9, 2005?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, I do not have that

level of detail, nor would it be tradition in this House to have that level of

detail available for an interim supply debate.

[1545]

I can advise the member that in the budget documents, in the

estimates, there is an allocation, as I mentioned, of $7.2 billion for regional

health sector funding. That funding is, in turn, allocated to each of the five

regional health authorities based on a population-needs formula so that

everybody gets an appropriate allocation that actually takes into consideration

the demographics and the size of their population and other factors that are

brought into consideration that are in fact the cost drivers in their particular

region. It's on that basis that the $7 billion is divided up and allocated.

With this bill that's before the House today, they will be

allocated approximately 6/12 of what would be their annual allocation. It is out

of that money that the health authorities will fund their needs for long-term

care beds — whether it's contracts with private sector; whether it's contracts

for individual, not-for-profit organizations; or whether it's in fact through

facilities that they own and operate themselves.

J. MacPhail: Why doesn't the minister have an answer to my

question?

Hon. C. Hansen: I have carefully reviewed the established

practice for debate around interim supply. It is in the parameters of that that

I guess the opposition or any member of the House can ask any questions they

want about the spending.

It is up to the Minister of Finance to respond to those questions

within his purview and his responsibilities as the Minister of Finance and to

the extent of the knowledge that he should have with regard to all of the

ministries and operations of government that this appropriation will fund.

J. MacPhail: I'm getting really upset, Mr. Chair — really

upset. I don't understand why this House — those who are in charge of this

Legislature — allows this to happen. I really don't. The abuse day after day of

this Legislature by this government, day after day, up to and including what the

minister just said….

Here's my authority on what interim supply is, which this minister

disagrees with. He disagrees with this, and it's on the basis of his

interpretation that I continue to ask questions, which he now refuses to answer.

It is shameful.

Here's what interim supply means, and I'm quoting. It's Canadian

parliamentary procedure, House of

[ Page 12410 ]

Commons, and there are no precedents contrary to this — none. "The granting

of interim supply does not necessarily constitute immediate House approval for

the programs to which it applies in the main estimates." While it states "not

necessarily," there's not one single precedent to the contrary.

Erskine May quotes from the B.C. parliamentary House that there

are very specific limitations to what can be funded prior to debate on the main

estimates. That is this: "It is, therefore, the established practice, during one

financial year, to seek authority for some provisional allocation of amounts for

the financing of the public service during the next financial year, pending

parliamentary approval of the corresponding main estimates." It is to be used

"for resources and cash to cover the needs of the defence and civil services,

House of Commons administration, the national audit office and electoral

commission for the first three or four months of the financial year, until final

authority can be given by the passage into law of the Appropriation Act."

It is for continuation of government programs while the main

estimates are passed. This minister is interpreting it differently. He's saying:

"No, we're actually passing 6/12 of the next budget, the service plans, and we

have authority to spend money on whatever we wish — new or old programs." Am I

wrong in interpreting what the minister said earlier today?

Hon. C. Hansen: Just to restate what I had said earlier. On

February 15 we tabled spending estimates for all of the ministries and

operations of government, and this interim supply is to provide authority for

6/12 of that appropriation, as set out in those documents that were tabled

before the House.

That is in keeping with past practice in this House. The only

thing that is different about this particular interim supply bill is that we are

seeking 6/12 of an appropriation instead of the V\zx that has happened in recent

election years and the C\zx that happens in non-election years.

[1550]

In fact, if you want to go back to 1983, you will actually find a

year when the interim supply was for >\zx of the appropriation, as requested in

the estimates documents that were tabled. I know the member is interested in

history. That was actually approved with very little debate by a unanimous vote

of the House, and the NDP opposition of the day actually supported that piece of

legislation.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, well, about 20 percent of the people

voting in this upcoming election weren't even born then. So I'm not sure what

the minister's trying to do there. But hey, if he wants to take credit for a

Socred record, fine. Fill his boots, if that's his model.

Mr. Chair, when I asked the minister on what basis this money

would be allocated, he referred me to the service plans. Does he think that

Hansard doesn't record this? Does he think somehow he can deny his own words?

I'm asking questions from the service plans, and he's refusing to answer them.

It's embarrassing, and it's shameful to see how this House is being treated by

this government. It's just unbelievable. He refuses to get the proper officials

in here to answer the questions. No disrespect to the officials here, who are

excellent officials, but the minister clearly doesn't have the advice to answer

the questions, and he should get it. This is $13 billion of taxpayer money, and

these questions haven't been answered at all.

Does the minister have the information…? Well, let me try to give

it according to what the minister is offering. He quoted from the main

estimates. Isn't that a riot, Mr. Chair? He answered one of my questions by

quoting from the main estimates, and yet he won't answer questions about the

main estimates, because he says we're in interim supply. Really. How circular

can this government get until we're all choked to death by it?

What is the status of the number of beds that have been closed,

region by region, and what's the allocation of moneys, health authority by

health authority, for long-term care beds?

Hon. C. Hansen: I understand that the member is

disappointed that we're not engaging in the full estimates debate, ministry by

ministry, prior to the dissolution of this Legislature for the May 17 election.

I understand that. I've heard her speak publicly about that both in this chamber

and outside. But this is not the estimates debate. This is a debate on interim

supply. I can point to exactly where in the spending estimates as tabled…. There

is an allocation there. What this interim supply bill does is ask for exactly

6/12 of the total appropriation that was requested in Budget 2005. In terms of

ministry by ministry or agency by agency, it's about 6/12 of the appropriation

that is provided for in this interim supply bill.

I appreciate that the member may want to go into minute detail as

she would if we were actually in the estimates debate in this House, but that is

not the purpose of an interim supply debate, and it's not why we're here today.

J. MacPhail: Well, educate me, Mr. Chair. Maybe the

minister could tell me what he would consider an appropriate question on

long-term care beds and their promise to provide an additional 5,000 long-term

care beds. Perhaps he could just educate me on what would be an appropriate

question that he would accept from me.

Hon. C. Hansen: I have tried to point out to the member

where in the estimates funding for interim and long-term care beds is provided

for. It's provided through the regional health authorities. I've described to

her the formula that is used to allocate this particular appropriation to the

health authorities who, in turn, would make decisions around the funding of

intermediate and long-term care beds in their particular region. That is set out

in the documents, and it's there for everybody to see.

[ Page 12411 ]

[1555]

J. MacPhail: The main estimates. Let me get this clear. Are

we passing the main estimates? No. Am I asking questions of the government about

6/12 of the spending? Yes. The government denies me answers based on: "We're not

passing the main estimates." But he's assuming he'll have 6/12 of those main

estimates, and he quotes from them. That's how ridiculously circular his

arguments are.

In the budget letters to the health authorities, will there be any

specifics? The minister just said that budget letters are going out. Will there

be any specifics on long-term care?

Hon. C. Hansen: The budget letters that I referred to, that

I would be sending out, would be budget letters to the ministers who are

responsible for those various ministries and agencies of government. There will

be one of those letters that will go forward to the Minister of Health Services

with regard to what she and her ministry can anticipate with regard to the

funding that would be approved by this interim supply bill. It is then the

responsibility of the Ministry of Health Services to ensure that the population

needs–based formula is utilized to determine the allocation to the various

health authorities. They will then draft a letter that is signed by the Minister

of Health Services that will go to each of the regional health authorities,

setting out the parameters for the expenditure of that appropriation.

J. MacPhail: On what basis is the appropriation?

Hon. C. Hansen: The appropriation to the Ministry of Health

Services is approximately 6/12 of what is set out in the estimates tabled on

February 15. In that document, as I mentioned earlier, there is a line item for

regional health authorities and the regional health sector. They will allocate

funding according to the population needs–based formula that I discussed

earlier.

J. MacPhail: What's the legal basis for the appropriation

upon which the minister will write the budget letter?

Hon. C. Hansen: It would be this bill that is before the

House now.

J. MacPhail: That's why I'm asking my questions — because

the appropriation for 6/12 is based on this bill, and no other authority exists.

We have every right to ask these questions based on that appropriation, and we

have every right to expect answers — every right. You cannot avoid any other

conclusion than the one I have just outlined, Mr. Chair.

I don't know. Is somebody going to write a book on the way this

House was conducted over the last four years? Is someone going to write a book

about the abuses of this Legislature by this government? They should. And this

is a full chapter.

I'm just going to continue asking my questions. Is the minister

wanting to do that until 9 o'clock tonight and 5:45 tomorrow? We'd be just happy

to. Then we'll have a wealth of information to show what this government refuses

to admit to, refuses to answer and is hiding from. Unfortunately for the

Minister of Finance, it will all be under his name. I don't think any other

Minister of Finance will have that kind of record. But there will be the list of

questions that he refuses to answer. Yet he's going to assume, because of the

tyrannical majority of his party, that he has the right to spend money as he

sees fit, based on the passage of this.

The February 9, 2005, backgrounder says…. Again, it's a government

document. Of the 4,081 new beds in the backgrounder, how many of those are 24-7

complex care, versus assisted-living and supportive housing units with home

support? What I want to identify is how many there are. Then I'm going to ask

region by region, and I'm going to ask how much money is being spent in this

interim supply on adding to those beds.

Hon. C. Hansen: Just to address some of the member's

earlier comments, the use of interim supply is a tradition in this House. The

only thing that is different about this supply bill from ones that have been

done in recent history, and that's subsequent to 1984, is that this is asking

for six months of appropriation rather than the four months of appropriation

that has been the tradition in recent history.

[H. Long in the chair.]

I'd be glad to engage in any questions the member has as to why we

are seeking six months instead of four months, as happened in a previous

election year. I've outlined some of that, and I'd be pleased to do so.

[1600]

As for specific, very detailed questions about internal operations

within individual ministries, I will endeavour to make sure that those very

specific questions are passed on to relevant ministers. I am sure that when this

House does engage in the full debate of estimates, there will be ample

opportunity to canvass all of that in specific detail.

J. MacPhail: What part of the service plans to which the

minister referred me talks about whether it should be six months interim supply

or four months interim supply? He referred me to the service plans to justify

the spending. So what service plan was he quoting from?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'd be pleased to outline for the member

reasons why six months of supply is an appropriate request in this year. I

outlined some of this earlier — that as a result of amendments to the Budget

Transparency and Accountability Act, there is now a requirement that within 90

days of the swearing-in of executive council, there have to be new estimates

that are tabled before this House.

[ Page 12412 ]

While that is not a budget as we know it, it constitutes as much

work now as a budget would constitute, including the requirement for the

forecast council to convene to look at their forecasts. All of the assumptions

have to be reviewed as they would be reviewed for an annual budget. New service

plans would have to be presented for all of the ministries. Post-election, we

don't know whether the ministries would wind up being constituted in the same

way they are now. That is certainly an option for the new government and new

Legislature subsequent to the election.

Based on consultations with officials in the ministry and looking

at that calendar as it's now set out for us in more precise detail than it's

ever been set out before in an election year, it was our determination that

there was a need for 6/12 of appropriation for us to make sure that we can live

up to those obligations under those various pieces of legislation.

J. MacPhail: So is that it? Is that what the minister has

for all of his answers? He says that what we're debating here is: why V\zx or

6/12? Is that it?

Would the minister like a recess so we could actually get staff in

to answer these questions? Because these questions are in order and appropriate,

and they're the responsible questions for a government to answer if they

actually think they're accountable to the taxpayer. So would the minister like a

recess to get the proper staff in here to answer these questions? Or is he going

to continue to refuse to answer them? I'd be happy to have the chamber clear,

and we'll just read our questions for the next nine hours. We'll just read them

into the record.

Hon. C. Hansen: I am fully aware of the precedents in this

House around interim supply. I am aware that any member of the House is free to

ask whatever questions they wish to ask, at whatever level of detail they wish

to ask. It is up to the Minister of Finance to answer whatever questions are

within his purview as the Minister of Finance. That is a precedent that I think

is appropriate for us to follow in this case.

J. MacPhail: Well, I wasn't going to refer to this,

but when I was Minister of Finance, I brought in ministers during interim supply

to answer questions. I showed some respect for this House and to the then

opposition. Maybe that's the precedent the minister would like to live up to.

Maybe he's forgotten that precedent. And I wasn't the only Minister of Finance

to do that.

We actually took that the opposition had a serious role to play,

and we treated them with respect. This minister has completely done the

opposite. There is a precedent for bringing in ministers to answer questions,

and given the highly unusual circumstances of this government going to

guillotine debate, he should do the same. He should absolutely do the same.

[1605]

We're talking about long-term care here, Mr. Chair. We're trying

to find out how this government's budget is going to provide the commitment for

long-term care that they promised. They've been caught out that they've failed

in their commitment. The Premier admitted that they haven't delivered on their

commitment which, to his credit, he acknowledged. We're trying to find out

before this election. If this is anything but a pre-election budget, this

government should answer this question.

Their own discussion document, dated January 13, '03, is entitled

Meeting the Ongoing Care Needs of Seniors and People with Disabilities. A

Planning Model: Home Support, Assisted Living and Residential Care Services.

It had an outline of how many beds would be built and when.

Can the minister update us from this document about how many beds

would be built when and in what year?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, I did go back and review

Hansard for the period of time that the member was the minister. When

members of executive council came into the chamber as part of an interim supply

debate, it was specifically with regard to the use of special warrants. That is

a provision, for those that may be watching this, where cabinet, by decree,

allocates themselves the right to spend money on the public's behalf without the

pre-approval of the Legislature of this province.

I've gone back and read as much as I can. I must confess that I

didn't read every single page of Hansard over the last 20 years, but

maybe the member can find me some precedent that would speak otherwise. I do

want to respect the precedents of the House with regard to this piece of

legislation.

As I said earlier in this debate, if she has very detailed,

specific questions about bed allocations or where beds are going to be built

around this province, I'd be pleased to bring those questions to the attention

of the minister responsible.

J. MacPhail: I don't know where to begin. Somehow the

minister now uses the fact that the previous government brought ministers in

here to answer questions as a negative, as opposed to what he's doing, which is

refusing to answer questions. How bizarre is that?

I actually feel very sorry for this minister. Clearly, he's been

put out on the end of a skewer. Well, he's going to be on that skewer till 5:45

p.m. tomorrow. It's shameful. It's embarrassing. He's been abandoned, and he's

treating every British Columbian with disrespect — absolutely a lack of respect.

He stands up and cites precedents about how ministers came in here

to answer questions as to why he's not going to do it. He won't answer any

questions about long-term care. Well, Mr. Chair, believe you me, if this

government, during the election which starts on Friday — because their

government is shutting down this Legislature, and they're hitting the campaign

trail on the taxpayer dollar — makes one statement about a commitment to

long-term care beds, his words will be coming back to haunt him on billboards —

about what he refused to answer completely. It will be his fault

[ Page 12413 ]

that that exists, if they say one word about long-term care — one word.

What's the difference between complex care and assisted living?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is a question for the Minister of

Health Services during an estimates debate in this House. I know it has come up

in past years. I know that previous ministers have answered that question in

detail, so it is on the record in Hansard from previous estimates

debates. The answers that were given at that time by the Minister of Health

Services or the then Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care

are the same answers that would stand today. They are on the record.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could tell me where

they're on the record.

The Chair: Is that through the Chair, member?

J. MacPhail: Sorry — yeah.

Hon. C. Hansen: That would be referenced in the Hansard

index and could be found.

J. MacPhail: I can't find it in Hansard . He just

said it was in Hansard . Could he please tell me where.

Hon. C. Hansen: If the member is not able to find a

specific reference in Hansard , I believe there is a website that is under

Independent Living B.C. that would provide some of those

definitions for her.

[1610]

J. MacPhail: It's a mockery. Actually, this minister is

making a mockery of this House by somehow suggesting that these questions are

illegitimate because they've been answered before. They haven't been answered

before. We have a very small staff, but we do our research properly. I think

that's been demonstrated over the last four years. These are legitimate

questions that remain unanswered, and for the minister to somehow suggest

otherwise is ridiculous.

Let me just outline my logic here. There is a projected growth

rate of seniors over 45 — seniors over 85. My apologies. That would make you

barely a senior if it had been the former.

The government itself has said that the demand for residential

care beds has gone down. That's what they said February 9, so I'm trying to

figure out what their plans are for this 6/12 that we're passing for residential

long-term care beds. Perhaps it's zero, because they said long-term care demand

has gone down. He won't answer my questions.

Well, let me ask this question. What is the projected growth rate

for seniors over 85 here in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would never suggest that the questions

the member is putting are inappropriate questions. I just do not have a level of

detail with me as Minister of Finance to answer that level of detail, nor is it

necessary to provide those kinds of detailed answers during an interim supply

debate.

The appropriate time for the kind of questions that the member is

seeking answers for is during the ministry estimates debates. As I said earlier,

I appreciate how much she would like to be engaged in a ministry-by-ministry

debate at this point. That opportunity will present itself prior to the

expiration of this interim supply allocation or on the authority of the House,

as may be set out.

J. MacPhail: Why is it that we're not in main estimates

now? Why is it that we're not debating main estimates now?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a tradition in this House

that the government seek interim supply if the full supply has not been passed

by the Legislature prior to the start of the fiscal year. Again, if you go back

through history, prior to the last four years I don't believe there was a time

when full supply had ever been allocated prior to June 1. In fact, probably into

June would be the most recent that supply had ever been fully allocated.

Governments have always depended on interim supply to make sure

that the operations of government are provided for until such time as full

supply is done. That is no exception this year. We are approaching interim

supply as it has always been approached. The only exception is that we're asking

for 6/12 instead of the traditional V\zx allocation, and I've outlined the

reasons for that.

J. MacPhail: We're not in the main estimates because this

government refuses to call them. This parliament exists by law until April 18.

We have plenty of time to debate the estimates. This government refuses to call

them.

In fact, there is no need for interim supply until March 31. Today

is March 9. We could reach agreement to have the main estimates completed by

March 31. I proposed April 18; the government didn't respond. I'd be happy,

given this despicable treatment of parliament, to now propose that we have them

done by March 31. No, not this government. They're going to ram it through.

Well, the minister had better review history in Hansard . In

March 1999 the member for Vancouver-Hastings was the Minister of Finance

debating interim supply. The Minister of Children and Families and the Minister

of Health answered questions posed by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

Perhaps he overlooked that part of Hansard . That's one example, just one.

What a selective memory or a selective research the minister has, because, of

course, the current Minister of Finance is the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

[1615]

Well, Mr. Chair, I continue. Does the Minister of Finance agree,

in his budget planning for asking for 6/12

[ Page 12414 ]

of a year's budget, that the need for long-term care was going to shrink?

Hon. C. Hansen: What this interim supply bill would provide

for is an allocation to the Ministry of Health Services, which in turn would

provide budget letters to the various health authorities. The health authorities

would then determine what their needs are going to be for assisted-living or

residential care beds or, as we used to refer to in the old days….

I know we're using some of this terminology interchangeably. In

years gone by, we'd refer to it as intermediate long-term care. Today the health

authorities are looking at the need for assisted living and residential care,

which is probably the more current terminology that I should have been using

earlier in the debate. Those decisions would be made by the health authorities.

J. MacPhail: In the minister's estimate of asking for 6/12

of interim supply, did he determine what need, if any, there was to spend on

residential care beds, new care beds? And on what basis did he determine that?

Hon. C. Hansen: In Budget 2005 and reflected in the

estimates that were tabled on February 15, there is a $1.5 billion increase in

the appropriation for the Ministry of Health Services, cumulative for the term

from the '04-05 to '07-08 fiscal years. In that is an increase of $1.044

billion.

Included in that are services which would include a range of

things, but they would include increased options for frail seniors in the

assisted-living and residential care sector. There are increased dollars

allocated in this budget that flow to the health authorities, from which they

have to determine how they best need to meet the needs of seniors in their

respective regions.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance, in this House,

promised that 5,000 new, additional beds would be built by 2008. He just

referred to a combination of different kinds of beds. How much of that money to

which he just referred will be spent on assisted living?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is a determination that would be made

by the respective health authorities based on their existing supply of

residential care versus assisted-living beds in their respective regions.

J. MacPhail: The minister referred to…. He read a statement

that there's going to be $1-point-something billion spent on various programs,

which included assisted living. Does he have magic documents over there that

sometimes he's going to refer to and sometimes he's not?

How much of that money is going to be spent…? It was this minister

in this House this session who said that they would have 5,000 additional

long-term care beds built by 2008. How much of that is going to be spent on

assisted living? How much is going to be spent on supportive housing? How much

is actually for long-term complex care units?

Hon. C. Hansen: The document that I was reading from is

Budget and Fiscal Plan 2005/06-2007/08 , which was tabled in the House on

February 18. I was reading from page 18. It's a document that I know the member

has. What it does is set out the increased allocation over that time period that

will flow to the health authorities, from which they can fund the various

assisted-living and residential care and supportive housing initiatives that

meet the needs of seniors in their respective regions.

[1620]

J. MacPhail: In planning to spend 6/12, what thought

processes, what research did the Minister of Finance do to ensure that his

commitment to deliver 5,000 new long-term care beds by 2008 would be met in the

first six months of the budget '05-06?

Hon. C. Hansen: The work towards achieving that target is

an ongoing process. As we know, different health authorities are at different

stages in achieving those targets. As the member knows only too well, the target

date has been extended to the end of 2008 to achieve a goal that we previously

thought would be achieved by the end of 2006.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister tell me of a situation from

his research when interim supply was passed without being in the middle of

budget debate on the main estimates?

Hon. C. Hansen: Probably the best example is 2001, where

interim supply was brought in on March 29 and passed for V\zx of the spending.

It was passed through all readings in one sitting using standing order 81, and

there was no debate at all on the main estimates.

J. Kwan: But that was in the middle, when estimates were

being debated. That has been the historical pattern of when interim supply was

being debated. From time to time, yes, that is true. Interim supply bill debate

tends to be short, because it happens in the middle of estimates debate with

ministries.

This year it is completely different, wherein there is no

ministry-by-ministry, line-by-line debate at all. The questions my colleague has

put forward to the minister are questions that the minister should answer on the

basis that this government will be spending some $13 billion of taxpayers' money

on new programs. British Columbians have the right to know how their tax dollars

are being spent, so I ask the minister to answer the question.

Hon. C. Hansen: I guess the other example to go back to is

the election of 1996, if the member is looking for precedent. Actually, what

happened that year is that government operated for two months under special

warrants, because they brought in a budget and then called the election without

any debate at all on the budget. Interim supply was actually brought in on June

27 of that year. In the example there, they were funding

[ Page 12415 ]

out of special warrants without any debate in the House at all.

J. Kwan: Sorry, the minister is mistaken. Under the '96

scenario, it is my understanding that interim supply was brought in on the basis

of the previous budget. The new budget was tabled, and then it went to election.

Interim supply was never for future programs in the '96 scenario.

In this instance, what the government and the Minister of Finance

are asking is this — that $13 billion of taxpayers' money be put towards new

programs on which there would be no debate whatsoever. There's no accountability

with respect to how that $13 billion would be spent. That's the difference. In

the past, interim supply had always been targeted towards existing programs, so

you'd know where the dollars went and what those programs were. They had been

established, and that's what the dollars were for, in interim supplies of the

past. Not so in this instance.

[1625]

The valid question around health care is this. Given that there

would be $13 billion spent without a line-by-line debate on the budget, how many

of the beds that would be new, that would be built, that would be from the

interim supply budget…? What would be going towards funding these new beds, both

capital and operating?

Hon. C. Hansen: To address the specific question, as I

indicated earlier, I would be pleased to pass on detailed questions about how

many beds and where they might be. I'll be pleased to pass those along to the

Minister of Health Services. When this House addresses the full estimates of the

Ministry of Health Services, I'm sure the minister will be prepared to answer

questions.

I think that as we've gone back and looked at other election

years, the approach we are taking with this interim supply bill is certainly in

keeping with past practice, as I mentioned earlier — the only exception being

that we're asking for 6/12.

J. MacPhail: I would like to offer a recess to the Minister

of Finance so that he can get the appropriate staff here from the ministries,

and we'd be happy to tell him the order in which we're going to debate these

matters. I'm offering that to the Minister of Finance.

We will be debating health matters until 6 o'clock. Then we'll be

moving on to children and families after that, and women's services from 6:30

till probably conclusion. I'm offering the minister a recess so that he can get

the appropriate staff in here to answer these appropriate questions.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated, I can understand why the

members want to start on a full debate that is part of an estimates debate,

ministry by ministry. That is not the purpose of a debate that takes place on an

interim supply bill. I want to be respectful of practices in this House, and I

will answer questions to the best of my ability in my capacity as the Minister

of Finance. I have staff here that can assist me with that scope.

J. Kwan: Let me just say this. We will only get to ask

questions of the minister until 6 o'clock tomorrow. Today debate will go on

until 9 o'clock and then tomorrow until 6 o'clock. There is no opportunity

whatsoever to do ministry-by-ministry, line-by-line debate in full debate. That

is not what we're doing, and the minister knows that, because the government is

going to shut down this House.

[1630]

What we're doing, however, is this. The government wants to spend

$13 billion of taxpayers' money prior to the election, and the government wants

to go and do that without any debate in this House. Well, I am sorry, Mr. Chair.

The opposition's job is to hold the government to account even in the limited

time that the government is allowing the three opposition members to do that,

and we will. By any stretch of the imagination, $13 billion is not a small sum.

Less than two days' debate…. Trying to get some answers and some accountability

from this minister is hardly unreasonable.

By no means is this a line-by-line debate and full estimates. It

is only a portion of the questions that we will get a chance to ask, and we have

no choice over the matter. However, the minister has a choice to answer these

questions and provide some answers to British Columbians.

I will ask the minister again. The backgrounder goes on to state:

"A further 823 supported housing units without associated health care services

have also been built, bringing the total of new or replacement beds to 4,904."

If these beds have no health care services, how can they be counted towards the

total replacement beds for long-term care? Is the government trying to use

social housing dollars from the federal government to buffer its broken promises

around long-term care beds?

Hon. C. Hansen: I will make sure that the minister

responsible is aware of the question so that when the next Legislature gets into

the debate on the Ministry of Health Services, I'm sure the minister would have

the information available to provide that kind of a detailed answer to that kind

of a detailed question.

J. MacPhail: Why has the government not called the main

estimates? What's preventing the government from calling the main estimates?

Hon. C. Hansen: I guess if you look back over past election

years, it is in keeping with past practices, generally speaking. I think the

only thing that's different this year is that our government has actually got

away from the unpredictability of election dates. What's different this year is

that we have known for four years now when the election would be held, and it is

May 17. A writ will come down April 19. That is, I guess, what's different from

past election years, when governments sprung that kind of information on the

public by sur-

[ Page 12416 ]

prise. We have predictability in that, but that's the only thing that's

different about this particular election year.

J. Kwan: The minister is the Minister of Finance, so he

should be able to do the math. There are some six weeks before the writ is

dropped. What is there to prevent the government from calling main estimates

debate and passing them before the writ is dropped on April 19? It is only March

9 today.

Hon. C. Hansen: If you look back over the history of the

province, prior to these last couple of years — if you go right back to about

1986, which I have on this list — the previous earliest that the final supply

was completed by this House prior to our government was, in fact, on June 20.

That actually happened in 1994. That was the earliest that full supply had been

arrived at.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, member.

Hon. C. Hansen: I appreciate that the NDP members of this

Legislature had indicated that they thought we could get through it faster this

year. That would not be in recognizing that other members, both those who are

government members and non-government members, may also wish to contribute to

that estimates debate. Therefore, work that would be done towards estimates this

year would…. It would be highly unlikely that there would be enough time to

complete final supply. Therefore, much of that work would have to be repeated by

the next Legislature, which will be elected May 17.

[1635]

J. MacPhail: Absolute balderdash, what the minister just

said. It is shameful how he tries to do what he does to misdirect the public

from the truth. He did just that. He misdirected the public away from the truth.

He knows full well that the estimates can be easily passed by April 19, unless

his own government caucus members refuse to do so. It would be highly unusual

for him to accuse his own government caucus members of refusing to pass the

budget to make it legal.

Last year's estimates debate was 27 days, including every single

question asked by every member of the House, and there are 27 days of sitting.

Why doesn't he just have the guts to stand up and say he doesn't want to shine

the light on his budget? Why doesn't he stop this charade that somehow it's not

possible? Are we now to assume that one of the consequences of their fixed

election date is that we have a 65-day election campaign at the taxpayers'

expense and no ability to pass a budget? Is that the only conclusion we can

reach? Shame on him.

He knows full well that he can call the main estimates today and

that they can be passed by April 19, because what he also has available to him

is the very same

section they used to pass this interim supply bill — standing

order 81.1(2). He can allocate time. He could use the very same piece of

legislation he's used to guillotine the debate tomorrow at 5:45 to guillotine it

on April 19, and they've used it before. There is absolutely nothing to prevent

this government….

How much federal money is targeted for social housing in the first

6/12 of the budget for '05-06?

Hon. C. Hansen: I certainly have, as part of the budget

documents, the transfers from the federal government. I don't have the specific

breakdowns of that, but I will be pleased to make the member's question

available to the minister.

J. Kwan: When will the minister make that information

available?

Hon. C. Hansen: As we discussed before, that kind of detail

is appropriate in questions to be put forward during an estimates debate. I'm

sure, based on the questions the members want to put on the record today, that

ministers will be prepared to address those to the best of their abilities at

that time.

J. Kwan: Then let me just put this on the record. In the

last four years this government has actually brought in closure in the

Legislature, shutting down estimates debate as well as debate on legislation.

Nothing stopped the government from doing that. They proceeded to do that, and

then they allocated time for each of the ministries and for the legislation that

was to be debated. If those items were not completed, they were deemed to be

completed within the time allotted to them, and then debate was shut down. At

the end of that, the government proceeded to pass everything. That's what the

government did, and that's been their track record in the last four years.

[1640]

There is nothing that prevents the government from actually

bringing forward the main estimates debate to allow for some questions until

April 19. In fact, the opposition has already made the offer, and we stand by

the offer, to conclude all the business of the House — the line-by-line,

ministry-by-ministry debate — by April 19, before the writ is dropped. We would

commit to that time line. There is nothing that would not allow for the

government to finish ministry-by-ministry, line-by-line debate, as the Minister

of Finance claims. Nothing prevents that from happening. So why won't the

minister allow for that?

Why is the government so afraid to debate their own budget, which

they praise and claim to be so proud of? Why won't the minister answer the basic

questions that the opposition has put to him? What's preventing them, with the

exception that the government does not want British Columbians to know the

truth? Is that the issue here — that the minister does not want British

Columbians to know the truth about their budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: I must say that it's a little hard to take,

coming from members of that political party who

[ Page 12417 ]

in 1996 brought down a budget and called an election without any debate at

all. That was a bit hard to take.

Even in 2001, when there were not fixed election dates, when we

did not know when the writ was coming down, that government at that time did not

allow for a full estimates process before they called an election.

We have…

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, member. Order. Let the minister finish.

Hon. C. Hansen: …in this House a tabled budget, with a far

greater degree of transparency and information, posted on the website for

everybody to see and for the public to look at critically. It is a budget that

we have every reason to be very proud of, and in terms of the feedback from

around the province, that is certainly reinforced by the public.

We've had a full debate — all six days of the budget debate — in

this House, which was voted on by members of this chamber last week. We are now

putting forward interim supply, which is part of a standard practice in this

House, and that's what's before us today.

The only thing that's different about this one, as I've mentioned

many times, is that we are seeking 6/12 of an appropriation as opposed to 4/12

of an appropriation, and I have outlined the reasons why that is necessary.

J. Kwan: Sorry, minister. Previous interim supply bills

actually dealt with funding for existing programs where people already know what

the track record is and what the money goes towards.

This interim supply bill deals with new programs and new

commitments that have not been debated or mentioned in this Legislature. That is

the difference. Maybe the Minister of Finance will actually wake up and see the

difference and tell the truth to British Columbians.

There is nothing to prevent main estimates debate. It is this

government and this minister that brought down the guillotine to shut down the

debate by tomorrow. There is no reason for that to happen. By the government's

own standards, they said that with the fixed dates the House would actually not

adjourn and doesn't need to adjourn until April 19. There is ample time to

engage in a fulsome debate.

[1645]

I'm going to give the minister another opportunity to answer some

questions. But before I do that, I would ask that the minister introduce the new

staff who have just arrived in the chamber. Perhaps they would assist the

minister. I trust that the minister will allow them to assist him to answer the

questions that the opposition has put to him so that British Columbians could

get some answers and have some accountability for this government's action.

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, if you go back and look at the

interim supply bills that have been introduced in this House over recent

history, they're always based on twelfths. It's always a percentage of the

annual appropriation based on twelfths. In this case we're asking for 6/12.

It is also the practice of this House that it is a percentage of

the appropriation for the budget that was tabled — not the previous year's

budget but the budget that is actually tabled before the House. That is based

on…. Today what we are doing is asking for 6/12 of the appropriation for the

spending plan…

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, member.

Hon. C. Hansen: …as set out. There is absolutely

nothing that prevents government from allocating part of the interim supply of

appropriation to new programs, and there is nothing in the practice of this

government in this province that would restrict the government to just

previously existing programs.

J. MacPhail: That's what my colleague just said. We're

debating new programs here, and we're asking questions on it.

What the heck does the minister think his obligation is to this

chamber? Based on 6/12 of the new budget, how much money from the federal

government targeted for social housing is the government spending on assisted

living? And would the minister mind answering the question about newly arrived

staff, please?

Hon. C. Hansen: The staff member who joined us is Michael

Shepherd, who is legal counsel for the Ministry of Attorney General.

J. Kwan: The bill that we're debating — just so everyone

knows — is that the government is asking for authority to spend $13 billion of

taxpayers' money without answering any questions on the details of how those

dollars will be spent on the operating side. Then the go