British Columbia Hansard — 20130711pm Hansard v2n7

20130711pm-Hansard-v2n7

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

First Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Th ursday, July 11, 2013 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 2, Number 7

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC First Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Pat Pimm Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..................................................................................................... Hon. Don McRae Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ......................................................................................................................................................Adrian Dix Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ....................................................................................................................................... Marc Dalton Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Clerk Consultant ..............................................................................................................................................E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) .......................... Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon. Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................

Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP) ............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon. Peter (BC Liberal) ...................................

Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Scott (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) ....................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal) ........................................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal) ..................................................

Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Hon. Pat (BC Liberal) ...............................................Peace River North Plecas, Darryl (BC Liberal) ....................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal) ........................................ Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston Vacant ...................................................................................... Westside-Kelowna LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ............................................................................Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds .........................................................................

Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T. Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack .........................................................................................

John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley...........................................................................Hon. Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................

Bill Routley Delta North ..................................................................................Scott Hamilton Delta South ...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola....................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ............................................................... Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon.

Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan .........................................................

Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ................................................. Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ...................................................................... Hon. Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .............................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ......................................................................................Vacant Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 34; Independent 2; Vacant 1

CONTENTS Th ursday, July 11, 2013 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................................................................... 389 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ........................................................................................................................................... 389 Esquimalt United Church M. Karagianis Salmon Arm Roots and Blues Festival G. Kyllo Veterans memorial and heritage mural in Bella Bella area J. Rice Minter Gardens L.

Th roness Second-stage housing for women in Campbell River C. Trevena Tour de Delta bicycle race S. Hamilton Oral Questions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 391 Government support for residents of Johnsons Landing A. Dix Hon. S. Anton M. Mungall Government action on delays in court proceedings L. Krog Hon. S. Anton Recovery of deceased persons from B.C. waters D. Eby Hon. S. Anton C. James Implementation of Missing Women Inquiry recommendations M. Karagianis Hon. S.

Anton Public transportation service on Highway 16 J. Rice Hon. S. Anton Motions Without Notice ........................................................................................................................................................... 396 Committee of Supply to sit in three sections Hon. M. de Jong J.

Horgan Tabling Documents ................................................................................................................................................................... 397 Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2012 Petitions ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 397 Michelle Stilwell B. Routley

Orders of the Day Committee of Supply ................................................................................................................................................................ 397 Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued) M. Farnworth Hon. M. de Jong K. Corrigan S.

Simpson Estimates: Management of public funds and debt Estimates: Other appropriations Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply ................................................................................................................................................................ 418 Estimates: Ministry of Environment (continued) G. Holman Hon. M. Polak B. Routley V . Huntington S. Robinson C. Trevena B. Ralston G. Heyman J. Shin A. Weaver M. Mungall Estimates: Ministry of Education Hon. P . Fassbender R. Fleming

THURSDAY , JULY 11, 2013 Th e House met at 1:34 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members Hon. M. de Jong: A good evening, a good day. We'll hear more about that formally later, but we're moving the furniture as a result, and that's a good thing. [1335] Another good thing today is that I have some guests. Relatives of mine from the Kingdom of the Netherlands are here. Jacques and Connie Vassen are visiting. As they sit here in person, the rest of the Van Boxtels and Tolls are watching, glued to their television set. I know that the House will make them welcome.

Th ey're going to explore British Columbia and have a great time here in Canada. Statements (Standing Order 25B) ESQUIMALT UNITED CHURCH M. Karagianis: For 100 years the Esquimalt United Church has been a pillar in my community. Th e church, on the corner of Lyall Street and Admirals Road, opened its doors for the fi rst time in September 1913. It was called the First Methodist Esquimalt Naval and Military Church and was built through the dedicated eff orts of its congregation and the community at large.

Over the years it has built an honoured reputation of serving both the military and civilian communities and has been a place of spiritual growth, outreach and sup- port to citizens and families. Today that proud tradition continues. Th e Esquimalt United Church is a regular gathering place for a number of local groups. Th ey include the Esquimalt Garden Club, the Esquimalt Photography Club, the Victoria Association for Community Living and the Senior Ladies Group. The church is also home to the Rainbow Kitchen, which serves a hot lunch meal at noon, Monday through Friday.

I've had the great pleasure of helping those vol- unteers with their lunch service, and I have to say that they're a dedicated, inspiring group of citizens doing great work. Th e Esquimalt United Church really is a place well loved and well used by my community. I hope all mem- bers of the House will join me in congratulating the church on its 100th anniversary. All the best to the members of the board, the congregation and all those who have contributed over the years to make Esquimalt United such a vital part of the community. SALMON ARM ROOTS AND BLUES FESTIV AL G.

Kyllo: I'm pleased to rise today and share with you the largest and most musically diverse festival in the B.C. Interior — the Salmon Arm Roots and Blues Festival. Th is year marks the 21st anniversary of the Roots and Blues Festival, which happens on the third weekend of August at the Salmon Arm Fair Grounds. Th e event is championed by creative director Hugo Rampen and a dedicated local board of directors, who work through- out the year to plan for this world-class event.

A core group of employees, along with hundreds of enthusias- tic and soulful volunteers, are responsible, in large part, for the ongoing success of the Salmon Arm Roots and Blues Festival. It brings millions of dollars to the local economy each year. Th e main stage is where you can catch the headliners, which this year include the talented Bruce Cockburn and City in Colour. Th e Boogie Barn Stage pumps out non-stop music for the dancers in the crowd. Overall, six stages run concurrently, featuring blues, world, alterna- tive roots, folk, dance and other genres.

Th e festival is family friendly, off ering plenty of kids' activities and free admission for the 12-and-under crowd. Th e festival is a great contributor to our local economy. It attracts performers, vendors and concert-goers, who stay in our local hotels and campgrounds, enjoy our res- taurants and peruse our shops during this three-day event.

Th e pre-festival outreach project, in partnership with Shuswap Tourism, the Shuswap Trail Alliance and other sponsors, takes the roots and blues experience out into other Shuswap communities and hot spots in the weeks running up to the festival, engaging both artists and resi- dents in roots and blues music. Th is outreach program also helps to showcase other Shuswap communities and expand the experience of visitors and locals while strengthening community ties and promoting economic prosperity.

Th e Salmon Arm Roots and Blues Festival is a great place to come together with family and friends, and I encourage my fellow mem- bers on both sides of the House to bring some music and dance into your lives and experience some Shuswap hos- pitality this summer. VETERANS MEMORIAL AND HERITAGE MURAL IN BELLA BELLA AREA J. Rice: Th is past Saturday I had the pleasure of at- tending two special occasions in Shearwater on the cen- tral coast of our province.

Th e fi rst event was a cenotaph and warrior pole dedication commemorating the Bella Bella World War II Royal Canadian Air Force Station, the airmen and local aboriginal veterans who served in the various wars and peacekeeping missions during the 20th century. 389

British Columbia Debates390 Thursday, July 11, 2013 Shearwater was fi rst established as an anti-submarine bomber reconnaissance post in 1941. Th e warrior pole, carved by Ian Reid, was installed by the descendants of the people who went to war from the central coast. Th ere was a formal military dedication as well as trad- itional Heiltsuk blessing ceremony, followed by, of course, a wild salmon barbecue. [1340] Th e second event, titled Bella Bella: United in History, was a celebration of the founding of Bella Bella and the united eff orts of the central coast communities and their contributions to the area.

Th is included both Heiltsuk and non-aboriginal contributors. I witnessed the unveiling of a mural that had been painted on the side of an original World War II air- craft hangar by internationally acclaimed muralist Paul Ygartua. Th e mural features portraits of the four found- ing chiefs of the Heiltsuk Nation and images of historic Heiltsuk and non-aboriginal community members who made a signifi cant contribution to the establishment of the greater Bella Bella community during the past 150 years.

Th is special day was the dream of Craig Widsten, who wanted to honour his father's legacy, Andrew Widsten, as well as give back to the community and the Heiltsuk Nation. Craig's father, Andrew Widsten, who was cap- tain of the Royal Canadian Air Force coastal marine division during World War II, purchased the Bella Bella RCAF station in 1947 and founded the community of Shearwater. He established a shipyard, marine business, sawmill and elementary school. Today it hosts a world- class fi shing lodge, full-service marina and resort.

A special thanks to William Housty of Bella Bella; Craig Widsten, Tracy Macdonald and Shawn Nagurny of Shearwater Resort and Marina. I encourage members to stop in Shearwater to visit the war memorial, the war- rior pole and United in History mural, as well as try out the world-class fi shing. MINTER GARDENS L. Th roness: Th ere's a destination in my riding that has welcomed hundreds of thousands of visitors from around the world. Minter Gardens sits like a colourful painting, framed by the Rocky Mountains.

Y ou can get lost on its shaded pathways as you stroll by waterfalls or carefully carved shrubs and pavilions that overlook bril- liant beds of fl owers — lots of fl owers. Th e Fraser Valley had come to regard Minter Gardens as a permanent fi xture, so it was a shock to learn that this signal attraction will close in October, aft er 33 years of service. Local residents are attached to the gardens, because they reflect the character of its community.

Rosedale is itself a kind of garden — rich farming coun- try dotted with long greenhouses fi lled with ornamental fl owers, and wide fi elds planted with endless varieties of shrubs and trees, which are in demand all over Canada. Minter Gardens distils all the charms of the valley into just 32 acres. In another sense, they are a manifestation of Brian Minter's interior life.

A passionate gardener and design- er, he and his wife, Faye, saw the potential of the bare land and created something wonderful of it, on the way attracting a devoted following of other B.C. gardeners through his television appearances, seminars, regular CBC radio shows and a bestselling book. Brian is also a warm and generous leader, recipient of the Order of Canada and the Order of Chilliwack, two times chancel- lor of Fraser Valley University and a great deal more. We all wonder where he fi nds the time.

While we will miss Minter Gardens, we are relieved to hear that Brian and Faye will continue to please their green-thumbed customers at their Country Garden store in Chilliwack, no doubt fi nding new ways to make the community a more beautiful place. Many thanks to Brian and Faye, and to their children, Lisa and Erin, for work- ing so hard to please so many for a generation. SECOND-STAGE HOUSING FOR WOMEN IN CAMPBELL RIVER C. Trevena: Aft er years of lobbying and seemingly endless negotiations, the reality came quickly.

Women started to move into Rose Harbour second-stage hous- ing in Campbell River this last week. By the end of the month all 27 units will be occupied. The need for second-stage supportive housing for women in the city has been known for many years. Safe places for vulnerable and hard-to-house women to live are very hard to fi nd. Rose Harbour has come out of the hard work and commitment of the staff and board of the Ann Elmore Transition House, who recognized both the need and the dangers women face by not having the sta- bility of a home. Th e city of Campbell River and B.C.

Housing signed a memorandum of understanding in 2008. Th e city agreed to provide the property and waive the development fees, and B.C. Housing agreed to provide capital and oper- ational costs. Th ere were hiccups and fears that the fragile negotiations would fall apart, until fi nally, last year the building in Campbell River's downtown started. Th e $6 million project has provided six family units as well as one-bedroom and bachelor suites. Th e women who live there will get safe and secure homes but must participate in programs to help them gain independence. Th e project is evolving.

At the moment, the women will sign six-month leases, which may be renewed for up to two years. At that point, it's hoped that the women will be able to fi nd a home of their own. Rose Harbour provides not only homes but space for the women's centre, for child care, for meeting rooms and a public shower for women who may be homeless and

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 11, 2013 391 have no access to such a simple thing as a clean bathroom. Women are oft en the hidden homeless, and the oppor- tunity to break the cycle, to have a place where they can call home and have the help and support to gain some life skills is extremely important. [1345] I applaud the hard work of the team at Ann Elmore Transition House, whose dream this was and, in particu- lar, the dynamism of the executive director, Valery Puetz, without whom I doubt Rose Harbour would ever have opened its doors. TOUR DE DELTA BICYCLE RACE S.

Hamilton: I rise today to talk about an exciting event that recently took place in my community. Th e Tour de Delta bike race was fi rst introduced to the cycling commun- ity in 2001, with its inaugural event attracting more than 200 cyclists from across Canada, the U.S. and countries abroad. With great weather, challenging courses and enthusi- astic spectators, Tour de Delta has been a wonderful suc- cess story, growing its prize purse and partnering with other communities to establish B.C. Superweek. Tour de Delta kicked off last Friday with the MK Delta Criterium.

Th is exhilarating event features circuits around the social heart of North Delta. Spectators were able to see the athletes pass by 70 times as they negotiat- ed the course with a fast downhill section, which saw the riders reach speeds of more than 70 kilometres per hour. Th e Brenco Criterium, held in historic Ladner village, attracts thousands of spectators who are able to watch as cyclists manipulate tight corners at speeds up to 60 kilo- metres per hour. Th e Tour de Delta weekend culminates with the gruel- ling White Spot Delta Road Race.

Th is year's new course wound through the streets of Tsawwassen, with Dennison Park at its heart. Th is race is challenging, and it's a true test of the athletes' strength, precision and endurance. Th is road race sees over 150 pro-cyclists racing throughout our community. Th is is the fi rst year that this event is UCI-sanctioned. Th is gives athletes points to qualify for other large-scale international races, not the least of which is the renowned Tour de France. B.C.

Superweek continues throughout this week with races at UBC, Burnaby and Vancouver's Gastown, as well as a full weekend of racing in the wonderful city of White Rock. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank and congratu- late all of the organizers and sponsors of this great event. Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, the member for Vancouver–False Creek seeks leave to make an intro- duction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members S. Sullivan: With us today we have Daniel Fontaine, CEO of the B.C. Care Providers Association — hundreds of agencies that provide supports to seniors in care.

He's also my former chief of staff from when I was mayor of Vancouver, so I'd like the House to acknowledge him. Oral Questions GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR RESIDENTS OF JOHNSONS LANDING A. Dix: Tomorrow will mark one year since a massive landslide hit the community of Johnsons Landing, kill- ing four people and destroying fi ve homes. At the time, the Premier said that Johnsons Landing residents "have our government's full support as they recover." It's clear, however, that they haven't received the full support of the government.

A recently completed geotechnical report has shown that 12 households are at a high or very high risk of an- other slide. On the basis of that report, many residents have been told that they can never return to their homes. Th e risk is just too great. Responding to the report, the government suggested that the province has no capacity or legislative authority to pursue buyouts. Th e Premier made a clear commitment.

To the current Justice Minister: why will this government not honour the commitment of the Premier and support Johnsons Landing residents, who have not only seen their com- munity devastated but have been fi nancially damaged as well? Hon. S. Anton: A year ago there was a tragic and un- expected landslide at Johnsons Landing. It resulted in the deaths of four people — a terrible loss to their fam- ilies. Homes were destroyed, and property was damaged.

For the past year the Emergency Management B.C. people have been on the ground helping out with the residents at Johnsons Landing, with the full cooperation of the regional district. In fact, over $1 million has been spent at that location, both with the technical support and also with fi nancial support. Th e fi nancial support includes $400,000 in disaster fi nancial assistance and an- other $178,000 pending in disaster fi nancial assistance. [1350] Th e emergency management team has viewed it as their job to be as liberal and as helpful as they can to resi- dents in the neighbourhood. And they have lost homes.

Th ere are homes that they cannot go back to, and there are properties that people cannot return to. It has been a very tough time, and I would like to thank the residents for their resilience, for their forbearance and for their cooperation with Emergency Management B.C. As I said, the team has been working very hard to

British Columbia Debates392 Thursday, July 11, 2013 do the best they can and to apply the remedies and the help that we have as liberally and as helpfully as they can. Madame Speaker: Th e Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental. A. Dix: Well, to put it simply, they can't go back to their homes in these cases, and they can't sell either. Th e minister talks about applying the rules liberally. Well, as the minister will know, aft er the 2005 landslide in North Vancouver destroyed two homes and killed one person, the province agreed to pay 100 percent of a buyout plan proposed by the regional district.

Now, the residents of Johnsons Landing and the region- al district director met with the Premier and the minister and discussed a potential buyout plan, but now the gov- ernment says it cannot and will not do anything. Th e min- ister might be as surprised as I am and as this House is, however, that the owners of property in Johnsons Landing still have to pay taxes on property that they can't live on. Can the Minister of Justice tell this House why the lib- eral approach that has been used in the past is not being applied to the residents of Johnsons Landing, so devas- tated by this situation? Hon. S.

Anton: As I would like to emphasize, Emer- gency Management B.C. is continuing to provide all the help that it can within the program that it operates. In fact, we've had a couple of letters from the regional dis- trict of Central Kootenay thanking government and the emergency management teams for all the work that they have done in support of the community. We will con- tinue to do what we can to support the residents within the program, within what is possible in the resources of government and the programs of government. As I said earlier, we've spent nearly $600,000, in fact, in direct benefi ts to residents.

We will continue, and our teams will continue, to apply the programs as quickly, as helpfully and as liberally as they can. It does not allow for home purchase, but it does allow for many other things, which they've been working with. It has been a very tough time on the residents, and it continues to be a tough time. It's a terrible thing to lose your home, to lose access to your property, but believe me, the Emergency Management people are doing every- thing they can to help with that situation. Madame Speaker: Th e Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental. A.

Dix: Th e fact of the matter is that when it came to North Vancouver, the government paid 100 percent of the costs. In the case of Johnsons Landing they can't fi nd room within the program to address the question. I think this is both profoundly unfair to people in Johnsons Landing but also leaves them very little place to go. I mean, the government is happy — perhaps not happy but accepting of the situation where they're paying taxes on property they can't go back to. Th ey're certainly not applying the liberal defi nition of the approach that they applied for residents of North Vancouver.

So I'd ask the Minister of Justice again — because in the May 16 report the regional district identifi ed the po- tential to rebuild or relocate homes to safer areas: will the minister not open up discussions on these very ques- tions with the residents of Johnsons Landing and apply the same liberal principles that were applied in the case of North Vancouver? [1355] Hon. S. Anton: Th e circumstances in North Vancouver were different than the circumstances in Johnsons Landing.

There was a program that was available in North Vancouver to mitigate future damage, but in this case there is, unfortunately, not a program. We do have programs of support, and I would like to emphasize that the Emergency Management has been using those programs — nearly $600,000 in direct sup- port to the residents and over $1 million in total because of the other mitigation and technical work that they have done in that district. We have received letters of appre- ciation.

Working within the programs that we have got, Emergency Management has been doing the very best it can helping residents in Johnsons Landing. M. Mungall: Four people died a year ago in Johnsons Landing. Many of their friends and neighbours have been evacuated from their homes for the past year, and aft er the recently completed geotechnical report, the regional district is unlikely to lift the evacuation order in high- and very high-risk locations. Residents have been emo- tionally and fi nancially devastated.

While the minister says that Emergency Management B.C. is doing everything it can, Emergency Management B.C. now needs leadership from this government. Will the minister do the right thing and work with the com- munity on a buyout plan? Hon. S. Anton: I think everybody in British Colum- bia…. I'm sure, in their communities, people were horri- fi ed at the disaster that struck, at the tragic loss of life in Johnsons Landing. It was a terrible moment. We do have programs. Emergency Management B.C. runs the government programs that can help in these cir- cumstances.

Th ey have been on the ground almost since they could humanly possibly get there. Th ey have worked very hard with the residents — as I said earlier, over $1 million, including nearly $600,000 in direct assistance to families, which they have been giving out as helpfully and as quickly and as liberally as they can. Th ose are the programs that we have, and as I said ear- lier, there have been letters of appreciation. Th ey have

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 11, 2013 393 been working very hard on the ground to do what they can to alleviate the tragedy and the tragic circumstances in Johnsons Landing. Madame Speaker: Nelson-Creston on a supplemental. M. Mungall: We have seen in other provinces that governments can and will act to provide assistance to cit- izens in need when hit by natural disasters. In Manitoba aft er fl ooding in 2009 the residents of Breezy Point were off ered buyouts.

More recently just next door in Alberta we saw the government act promptly in response to the terrible fl ooding we saw in Calgary and elsewhere. Here in B.C. the Premier made a promise to the residents of Johnsons Landing, and then she reneged on that promise. Th is government and this minister need to understand that many Johnsons Landing residents have lost every- thing and yet can't move on and are even paying property taxes on their homes, buried under metres of mud. What Johnsons Landing needs a year later is genuine support from this government, not empty words.

Will this minister and the Premier deliver on that sup- port and work with residents on a compensation plan? Hon. S. Anton: Again, I would like to emphasize the support that our teams did get from the regional district of Central Kootenay, who did send a couple of letters of appreciation for the hard work that the Emergency Management teams have done in delivering our govern- ment assistance programs to the families of the victims of this tragedy.

It was a terrible tragedy, and I know it struck everybody in British Columbia, which is why the teams there have been doing the best they can and the most they can within our emergency management programs to help the people in Johnsons Landing. [1400] GOVERNMENT ACTION ON DELAYS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS L. Krog: Serious criminal cases continue to be dis- missed because they take too long to get to trial. Recently a grow-op case involving more than 1,600 plants in Prince George was thrown out. Th e presiding judge said that the cause of the delay was tied to a lack of institu- tional resources and Crown counsel.

Can the Minister of Justice explain why this is still happening aft er years of both the judiciary and people involved in the legal community pointing out that there was a genuine crisis in our legal system? Hon. S. Anton: I can assure you, Madame Speaker, and this House that nobody likes to see cases stayed be- cause of institutional resources. On the Crown resources at the time, I would observe that this was federal Crown counsel, not provincial. But on the institutional resources of courts, I am very pleased to be able to report that in fact, the judicial stays have been declining over the last year.

I've just lost the exact number, but it's about half of what it was in the previous year. Th e important thing, though, is that justice reform has really taken great leaps forward recently with the Justice Reform and Transparency Act and with the justice summit that was held, with unprecedented cooperation between judges, courts, lawyers and other stakeholders in the system. We are determined to fi nd ways to take the pressure off the courts and to help expedite the process of jus- tice and the process in the courts, because everybody in British Columbia is entitled to timely and accessible jus- tice.

Th at's the mantra of justice reform, and that's what we're aiming for in our ministry. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Nanaimo on a supplemental. L. Krog: Well, the last time there was a great leap for- ward, that turned out to be a bit of a bust historically as well. Th e number of stays may be down, but serious cases are still being thrown out. It's very cold comfort to a victim in Nanaimo that Mr.

Fred Widdifi eld, a mem- ber of the notorious Hell's Angels bikers gang, had a case dismissed against him because the court ruled that his Charter rights were violated in a serious extortion case where the victim was trying to be deprived of over $250,000 for a 1994 debt. So that victim has been vic- timized twice — once by the attempted extortion and a second time by seeing Mr. Widdifi eld walk out of the courtroom. So I want to know: what does the Minister of Justice have to say to that victim today in Nanaimo? Hon. S.

Anton: Let me tell you some of the initiatives in our ministry which are taking the pressure off the courts. First of all… Interjections. Hon. S. Anton: I still don't have the number, but I'll get it. ...the new Family Law Act, which was passed in this Legislature this spring, emphasizes the importance of family mediation. Take family cases out of court and allow children to get a quick resolution of their family matters.

Second, the immediate roadside prohibitions have re- placed criminal penalties in some cases with administrative penalties; 8,000 cases have not gone to court on impaired driving charges, and over 140 lives have been saved. RECOVERY OF DECEASED PERSONS FROM B.C. W ATERS D. Eby: I know we're all a little surprised on this side

British Columbia Debates394 Thursday, July 11, 2013 to hear that the response to the Hell's Angels is family law reform. But I digress. Y esterday I asked the Minister of Justice if she would take action to attempt to get the necessary technology to help Raymond Salmen's widow recover the body of her husband from Harrison Lake.

May I remind this House that the Salmen family; the family of Sid Neville, who was lost on François Lake; and families across B.C. in similar situations were told by the Minister of Justice to go ask someone else for help. [1405] Now it has come to my attention that the RCMP in B.C. has recently acquired the exact side-scan sonar equip- ment required. Th ey're actually using it to search Little Wilson Lake for the remains of another B.C. man. My question: why is the Minister of Justice refusing to show leadership and coordinate the B.C.

Coroners Service and the RCMP to use this equipment and bring these loved ones home? Hon. S. Anton: Th ese are tragic cases. Once again, I would like to express my condolences to the families of victims of drowning in British Columbia this summer. Some of them have been found. Some of them are not found, and those cases are particularly poignant. Police search and rescue teams put signifi cant eff ort into fi nding the missing persons. Sometimes they suc- ceed, and sometimes they do not succeed. When they don't succeed, it is a very unhappy situation.

It is not for me, though, to direct the police as to how they undergo their day-to-day operations. I guess this is not a day-to- day operation. Th is is a more extraordinary operation. Th ey take great risk. Th ey work very hard. Th ey go back again and again, in some circumstances, because they, too, want a successful resolution of these searches. I am not going to tell them how they manage their search- es, but I am going to certainly encourage them to con- tinue with them and thank them for the hard work that they do. Th ey put themselves at risk and their own fam- ilies at risk.

Th ey want a resolution, the same as everyone else. Th ese are tragic situations. D. Eby: Th e RCMP has the side-scan sonar. It has also come to my attention that B.C. Hydro has a Seamor 300F robotic camera that can also assist in recovering the re- mains of these family members lost in deep water. Why are B.C. families still holding local fundraisers to bring in Americans to do this work on an ad hoc basis? To put it bluntly, the equipment and the expertise are available here in B.C. Th e only thing missing is leadership.

Will the Minister of Justice commit to coordinating with these agencies — because if she won't, who will? — and with the families who have lost these loved ones in B.C. waters to use this equipment to recover the remains of these loved ones and bring them home? Hon. S. Anton: It is almost at the point where the member opposite is suggesting that the RCMP them- selves are not interested in making these recoveries. Nothing could be further from the truth. Th ey are as in- terested as…. It's their agency which must do these re- coveries.

Th ey are more interested than, I think, most of us, except for the families themselves. It's they who are out there day to day. It is they who are interacting with the families. It's they who want to fi nd the solutions. I am not going to tell individual RCMP de- tachments or search and rescue people how to manage their aff airs. Th ey are the experts. Th ey make the oper- ational decisions. Th ey take these things to heart. I think the member opposite should be very careful in the way he's framing his questions. Th ey want a resolu- tion. Th e families want a resolution. We all want a reso- lution. C.

James: I'd like to remind the minister that the RCMP are doing everything they can. Th is is not within their mandate. Th ey need the leadership from the prov- incial government to give comfort to these families. Th e family of Sid Neville had to reach out to the United States, to the generosity of a couple down there to come up and search for their loved one. Th e community of Burns Lake has reached out and assisted with the search. Th ey've held bottle drives, and they've had garage sales. Th at's what they've been doing to assist the family.

Two agencies that this government already works with, the RCMP and B.C. Hydro, have the expertise and the equip- ment. [1410] Again to the minister, why won't the minister show leadership that is needed and work to assist these families with the closure that they need and deserve? Hon. S. Anton: I agree with the member opposite. Th e families do need closure, and they do wish to have recov- ery of their loved ones. Th at is why the police go out day aft er day. Th ey go back again to these locations because they, too, want to recover these missing loved ones.

I don't think that there should be anything in this House which sheds doubt on that. Th ey are working hard to fi nd these missing people. Th ey have found some. Th ere are some they are still look- ing for. Th ey're working hard to make it happen. I am not going to go out and tell them what equipment to put where, but I think we should all rest assured they are do- ing everything they can to bring resolution to these tra- gic cases in British Columbia. IMPLEMENTATION OF MISSING WOMEN INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS M.

Karagianis: Prior to the provincial election the for- mer Minister of Justice indicated that this government is

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 11, 2013 395 putting the implementation of recommendations from the inquiry into missing and murdered women on hold, citing civil proceedings from the families of the mur- dered women as the reason. Th e coalition of advocacy groups, who were shut out of the inquiry process, said this in a letter to the minister yesterday: "Th e families of the missing and murdered women must absolutely not be made into scapegoats for the government's lack of progress." Th ey're right.

I'm sure the minister is aware that some of the recommendations in the report are a matter of life and death for the province's most vulnerable women. So can the minister, the current minister, tell this House to- day: does the government intend to continue stalling on implementing those recommendations? Hon. S. Anton: Th e case of the missing and murdered women was one of the most tragic events that has hap- pened here in British Columbia. It was a terrible tragedy for the families involved. It was a tragedy for everybody in British Columbia.

As we think back to the late 1990s — when many women went missing, where they were un- accounted for — no one seemed to know what happened or even to be able to fi gure it out. Of course, eventually there was a conviction, and in some of the cases, at least, we know what has happened. Former Justice and Commissioner Mr. Wally Oppal did his report, and I would like to thank all the families and participants who helped him in that report. I would like to thank Commissioner Oppal for the very strong recommendations that he made to us as a government to make sure that something like this never happens again.

On the day that report was issued, former Lieutenant- Governor Point was appointed to act as the champion. He reached out to families. He started on the process of healing and reconciliation. He hasn't remained in that position, and we are now considering how we should move forward in that. But I would like to thank, as well, the letter that the member points out from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. They expressed several times in that letter their very strong interest in working together in the implementa- tion of this report.

Just quickly, because it's my fi rst time to address this very serious issue in the House. Th is was in the platform of our government. Th is is in my mandate letter. It is in my heart and, I think, the hearts of everybody in this House that we need to do what we can. I can assure this House that we are moving forward on this report in every way that we can. M. Karagianis: Six months, 63 recommendations. Th e government has made promises numerous times, but there have been no timelines outlined by the government. Th ere are certainly no resources available to implement these recommendations.

I would have to say we share the frustration of the coali- tion of advocacy groups when they say in their letter: "We're frustrated and off ended by the suggestion that civil litiga- tion by families will constrain the government's response and stall the work that needs to be done." Th ey also say in their letter that such a tactic is not a legal requirement. [1415] If the minister disagrees with that, perhaps she could show us any kind of legal opinion that supports why the government would be using the language that civil liti- gation will constrain them.

If in fact that's not true, then will she commit to the House today to set out timelines and get on with undertaking implementing those recom- mendations? Hon. S. Anton: It is my commitment, and it's the com- mitment of this government, to create a legacy of safety and security for vulnerable women in this province. Th at is a priority. Th e report by Commissioner Oppal focused on two main themes. One was the inadequacy of the response at the time to missing-persons reports and missing-women reports in this particular case.

Th e other was the lack of clarity between police forces as to how information should be shared. Th e report ended at the period 2002. Over the last ten years there have been signifi cant changes made in the police response to missing persons. Th ere have been sig- nifi cant responses made between sharing of information amongst police departments — so much so that we now have 20 integrated police teams in British Columbia, a commitment of $70 million a year to help those teams. Th ere is a terrifi c amount of work being done, and I suspect that there may be another question.

I'll be able to report more on some of the things that are actually underway. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ON HIGHW AY 16 J. Rice: In 2006 the Highway of Tears Symposium — which was convened by northern communities, First Nations and service organizations — recommended that "a shuttle bus transportation system be established between each town and city located along the entire length of Highway 16, defi ned as the Highway of Tears." Six years later the commissioner for the Missing Women Inquiry recommended that this shuttle bus be put in place immediately. Y et here we are.

Another year has passed, and instead of delivering on the shuttle, this government actually ap- proved cuts to Greyhound bus service between Prince Rupert and Prince George. My question is to the Minister of Justice. Seven years have passed since the recommendation was fi rst made, and we've gone backwards, not forwards. When will the

British Columbia Debates396 Thursday, July 11, 2013 communities along Highway 16 get this shuttle? Hon. S. Anton: I thank the member for that question. Th e Transportation Ministry is working to identify con- siderations and solutions to enhance safety for travellers along Highway 16, because there are many women miss- ing on that highway and unaccounted for. Th at's a terrible, terrible situation. Let me mention some of the other things that have been undertaken as a result of the Missing Women Inquiry recommendations.

We have given $750,000 to the WISH Drop-in Centre in Vancouver, and another $400,000 from the city of Vancouver, for which I thank the city of Vancouver. Crown counsel is reviewing policy charges related to equality and vulnerable witnesses. We've awarded $1 mil- lion dollars in grants for crime prevention, including for projects that prevent violence against women. We have a three-year action plan to combat human traffi cking. The recommendations in the inquiry are being ad- dressed in many diff erent ways. Madame Speaker: Th ank you, Minister. Hon. S.

Anton: Th ose are a few, and I will be pleased to talk about more. [End of question period.] Motions Without Notice COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY TO SIT IN THREE SECTIONS Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move a motion that would further the motion adopted on July 8, which would au- thorize the Committee of Supply for this session, for the balance of the session, to sit in an additional third section, designated

Section C — a third House, as it were. I have provided a copy of the motion to my hon. friend and, I believe, to the independent members of the House as well. [1420] By leave, I move: [Further to the motion adopted on July 8, 2013, that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in an additional third

section designated

Section C, which will sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time. All rules and provisions of the motion related to Committee of Supply -

Section A shall apply to

Section C with the exception of membership. Th e membership of

Section C shall consist of 12 Members, being 7 Members of the B.C. Liberal Party and 5 Members of the New Democratic Party. Th e Members of Committee of Supply,

Section C shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under con- sideration and Messrs. Gibson, Bing, Lee, Hunt, Martin and Mme. Moira Stilwell, and Messrs. Ralston, Krog, Heyman and Mmes. Elmore and Mungall.] With leave, I move the motion, and then I have a brief couple comments, Madame Speaker. Leave granted. Hon. M. de Jong: Th e genesis of this — and, I will say, in an unusual session, one that follows the election — the desire is to ensure that there is adequate time for a proper canvassing of the ministerial estimates. Th ere are, admit- tedly, a variety of ways that can be accomplished.

Th e government, nor I, wish members to interpret this as signalling a commitment or a desire to proceed in this manner in all instances. It was one of the options that was available in terms of providing additional time and strikes the government as a reasonable one. I concede that it logistically presents a little more chal- lenge for members of the House, insofar as there will be a third venue in which estimates debates are being under- taken. But hopefully, the corresponding benefi t of pro- viding some additional time is one that members will see and assign some value to.

Again, as I hope members will appreciate, insofar as examining whether this is an appropriate or applicable measure to take in future ses- sions, that would be the subject of discussions amongst members and, certainly, between the government and the offi cial opposition. J. Horgan: I thank the Government House Leader for his presentation. He and I have been in discussions about how we, as members of this place, can discharge our re- sponsibilities to constituents and to the people of British Columbia with respect to the budget that was tabled two weeks ago.

We did agree, in the interest of time, to shorten the debates at second reading on the budget from six days to three days. I thought, and I agreed with the Finance Minister, that we are, in essence, debating materially the same budget that was tabled in February, where we did spend six days debating the budget. We had an oppor- tunity for 32 members of this place to observe and par- ticipate in a budget debate, and that was reasonable and appropriate.

But when the Government House Leader identifi ed the duration of this session to be starting on a particular date and ending on a particular date, that shortened the estimates process signifi cantly from previous years. In the examples the Finance Minister used, in my memory, of 2005 and 2009 — where we had budgets tabled, not fully debated, not fully passed and then a repeat of those budgets in the summer or fall of those years — we had in excess of 140 hours of debate time. With the

schedule as it sits, with two Houses, we will only have 120 hours, far less than I believe — and, I be- lieve, the Government House Leader agrees — we need to discharge our responsibilities. So what we've done…. It is reluctantly that I and my colleagues agree to be in three

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 11, 2013 397 places at one time. Members know that we're here…. When we tried this experiment in the year of 2012…. It's really tough to be in Committee A or Committee B, but now we have to go to the boiler room upstairs as well — not equipped with air conditioning, although I know the Clerk and staff have done their level best to make it an appropriate place in July to be having a debate. It's going to be uncomfortable. I hope, hon. Speaker — and I am making this appeal to you and, of course, to the Government House Leader — we will not repeat this in the future.

I do like to harken back to the dirty, dismal decade of the '90s, when we spent 400 hours debating budgets — 400 hours in a particular year. Apparently, openness and transparency and full dis- closure are not as important in the 21st century as they were back in the 1990s. We are going to accept that. We are going to do our level best to hold the government ac- countable, to address the issues in this budget, which we believe are bogus. We've agreed to the premise that the minister put forward. It's reluctantly that we say we will support this motion. Motion approved. [1425] Tabling Documents Hon. S.

Anton: I would like to table the Forest Appeals Commission 2012 annual report. Petitions Michelle Stilwell: Today I have a petition here, initi- ated by a constituent of mine, with 113 signatures. Th e petition calls on the province to waive the property transfer tax for those with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, otherwise known as ALS, and other disabling illnesses if they need to purchase a new residence to accommodate their disability. B. Routley: Today it's an honour to present this peti- tion from constituents in the Cowichan Valley.

Th e pe- tition concerns revision of the current procedure and timeline under the climate action secretariat. It is focused on greenhouse gases from transportation. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the con- tinuing estimates of the Ministry of Finance — and, in

Section A, Committee of Supply estimates for the Ministry of Environment, to be followed thereaft er by the Ministry of Education. Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE (continued) Th e House in Committee of Supply (Section B); D. Horne in the chair. Th e committee met at 2:29 p.m. On Vote 22: ministry operations, $114,879,000 (con- tinued). M.

Farnworth: Prior to our break at lunch we were talking about the Little Mountain land sale and the esti- mates of the $300 million from that sale. [1430] Can the minister just outline as to why it has taken three years to be able to complete this, when nothing on the original deal…? It's still the same deal as what was in place three years ago. Why has it taken so long? Hon.

M. de Jong: In short order, I think the answer re- lates to the necessity and desire of the ultimate purchas- er to secure the proper approvals, zoning and otherwise, from the municipality, from the city of Vancouver, and the fact that the deal wouldn't close until that had been done. Th at accounts, in large measure, for the delay that occurred. And it was a delay. M. Farnworth: I understand the government's…. I know this is a unique situation, in that the minister has already stated that this is not part of the land sales.

But in terms of how these issues are now dealt with in the fu- ture, have changes been made so that we would not see this kind of situation in the future? A piece of land that is being sold is booked in one year, the sale may not be completed, and then it's booked again in the next year. It just keeps carrying on and on as part of the fi scal frame- work, the fi scal document that the government has tabled at budget time. Hon. M. de Jong: I don't know if my answer will sur- prise the member. Maybe it will a little bit. It actually goes to something he has said in the past and commented upon in the past.

When you're talking about the sale or disposal of assets — property assets, in this case — there is risk. The risk reveals itself, and did in this case, where funds that would be derived from this transaction were put in two successive budgets and then did not mater- ialize, which immediately created pressure. In fact, had the funds materialized and the transaction completed in the last fi scal year for which it was budgeted, the govern- ment would have far exceeded the target contained with- in that budget. Th e defi cit…. It still would have been a

British Columbia Debates398 Thursday, July 11, 2013 defi cit for '12-13, but it would have been a signifi cantly reduced defi cit. Now, to be fair, the revenue showing up this year as- sists in reaching the balanced budget, the modest surplus. But you do have to ask the other half of the question, or you have to consider the other half of the question. When an agreement is signed that contemplates closure on the deal in a certain year, any responsible accountant will tell you that you are obliged to book the money.

To not do so would arguably be as improper as booking it under cir- cumstances where you don't believe you are going to get it. It does work both ways. [1435] In this case there were complexities, I am told, around the finalization of the arrangements between the de- veloper and the municipality, the city. Th at contributed to, fi rst, uncertainty and, then, ultimate delay. In accepting the proposition that there is risk associat- ed with this, taking steps in constructing the transaction to minimize that risk….

But where deals are contingent upon steps being taken by a third party that does not engage the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia, that risk exists, and I will not try to dimin- ish that fact. But at the same time, I don't think it would be proper not to include in a given budget year, a given fi scal year, an accounting of the revenues that the Crown expects to receive on the basis of an agreement that it genuinely be- lieves will close in that fi scal year. M. Farnworth: I understand exactly what the minis- ter is saying. From an accounting perspective, I get that.

But here's where the issue comes in. It's like: "Okay, we believe we're going to sell it this year. Our job is to table a budget in February that's balanced. Th at's what the law says, so we table a balance." Th e revenue doesn't come in, and that doesn't get judged until well past into the next year, by which time that's old history. So around it comes again the next year, and: "Oh, we can book the same piece of property again, because we genuinely believe it's go- ing to be sold again." I mean, the value of the property is, for the sake of argument, $300 million — okay?

So you manage to book $300 million one year, $300 million the second year and then you get to do it a third year. But you've still only got the one asset, and you still only actually have the one $300 million. I guess it's not a question…. It's not so much the accounting principle, which I understand. In this case it's the political perception of a budget that's being balanced, in part, because of an asset that you said will be sold but in actuality doesn't get sold, and the truth of that doesn't come out until much later down the road. By that time you may have other areas of government revenue or what have you.

It may have made up, and you're not having to…. But that's not the point. Th e point is, when the budget is tabled, in essence, gov- ernment is able to take advantage of the fact that: "Oh, it still hasn't sold. We can include it this year again." Hon. M. de Jong: I guess that is — if one considers it from that point of view — an inherent weakness in a budgeting process that, in its simplest form, represents a projection of what will happen in the year ahead.

In many ways, the same weaknesses or criticisms or risks accrue in any other area of the budget where one makes projections about revenue and the accuracy of those projections doesn't reveal itself with certainty until the public accounts are tabled. In the case of fi scal year '12-13, in a week or so when the public accounts are tabled in the chamber, we'll have a defi nitive statement on the accuracy. In this case, the fact that we went over some of that during the budget, there won't be any great surprises. Better not be. Interjection. Hon.

M. de Jong: Th ere'll be some questions, but there shouldn't be any surprises. [1440] Th e defi nitive statement of what took place in a fi s- cal year, I acknowledge, is set out not in the budget but in the public accounts, which are a retrospective look at what happened, versus a budget document that looks forward and seeks to anticipate what will happen.

In the case, however, of a budget which seeks to achieve certain objectives — in our case, nothing more complicated than a balanced status and a modest surplus — the failure to achieve the revenues from a transaction like this can have very signifi cant consequences. I should point this out. In a legal framework such as we have, where the province is obliged by law to balance the budget, those consequences can be profound in the sense that the government will then be in a position of having to explain why it is that the legal requirements of the budgeting process have not been met.

So I hope the member will appreciate…. I haven't tried to minimize some of the issues that arise or minimize some of the risks associated, but budgeting being what it is — the attempt to project as accurately as possible what will happen in the year ahead — there are risks, and we try to minimize those risks. M. Farnworth: I think that's actually a good point in our discussion to actually shift to some of those forecasts on the expenditure side and their impact on the budget. As the minister has stated, the government puts out the three-year forecast in terms of what their expenditure projections are.

To use a term the minister likes to em- ploy from time to time…. I don't mean to be mischiev- ous with my comments, but the government will stand up and say: "Here's why this budget is good, because we are spending X billions of dollars on health care over the next three years."

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 11, 2013 399 It's not how much you're spending this year. More oft en than not, the government's position is to say, in an- swer to a question the opposition poses: "We are spend- ing $2.4 billion." Th at's what they like to say this year. Last year it was a diff erent number, and it's based over a three-year projection plan. So last year, when the ques- tions were asked, the government would be saying: "We are spending X billions of dollars, and what's the oppos- ition so concerned about?" Well, last year's fi nancial projection in health care, for example, was 3.7 percent.

Th at was arrived at by tak- ing into account the key fi gures that impact the Health Ministry. Th e minister is a former Minister of Health and will understand that whether it's the demograph- ics, health care, infl ation, aging population, contract ne- gotiations, the price of drugs, transfer payments from Ottawa, all of those things factor into the size of the health care budget. It is the biggest component of gov- ernment spending. But last year the decision was….

Th e budget said: "It needs 3.7 percent." Th is year's number is signifi cantly lower than that at 2.6 percent and signifi cantly lower than the historical average that has been spent over the last decade by this government. The question that I have is: how does the minister achieve…? How did they arrive at this fi gure of 2.6 per- cent? What factors were taken into account in arriving at 2.6 percent, and when was it arrived at? [1445] Hon. M. de Jong: I was listening carefully to the mem- ber's

preamble to the question. I turned to the deputy, and I said: "I don't think anything the member said in terms of the numbers and how the rate of growth has decreased was inaccurate, so I don't think that's an area of contention." The rate of growth in the health care budget has dropped dramatically. I think in '05 to '08 it was in the area of 7 percent per year, and then, I think, 6 percent, and it has dropped since that time.

I believe — and as a former Health Minister himself — there is widely held acceptance that health budgets in this country could not and cannot continue to rise at the rate they have historic- ally, and that speaks to the overall ability of the taxpayer to fund those increases. It might be a good time to point out that MSP pre- miums — I repeat this because it's surprising how many people don't know this — account for 12 percent, 11-point-something percent, of the health care budget. We'll check on that number, but it's in the 11 to 12 per- cent range, I believe.

Th ere is an imperative around trying to reduce the rate at which the health care budget increases. I would say this as well. Th is is where there is the delightful pol- itical debate about what one group characterizes as cuts to the health care budget and what I would characterize as something very diff erent, because in very real terms, the health care budget continues to go up. Because of its size, even a 2.6 percent increase represents a signifi - cant amount of money, billions of dollars, but it is clear- ly, under this fi scal plan, not increasing at the rate that it historically did.

Th e essence of the question is: how to accomplish that? It's tough, because it means asking agencies to look at diff erent ways to do things, occasionally asking them to stop doing things that they are doing — administrative savings, drug costs. [1450] Th e member has been involved in debates in the cham- ber. We endeavoured to bring drug costs down in British Columbia through a negotiated process that bluntly failed and led to legislation being introduced. Th e savings that were agreed upon between the parties to be achieved weren't. When the government….

When I became satis- fi ed that the prospects for realizing those savings didn't exist, we legislated à la the province of Ontario. We are looking at other areas. Laboratory fees in British Columbia are higher on average than elsewhere in the country on a per-capita, per-transaction basis. We think there are savings to be realized there. Th at is going to require discussions with physicians and those stake- holders who are involved in the provision of that service. But again, that is how we have endeavoured to fi nd the opportunities necessary to bend the cost curve down.

Th e last thing I'll say in answering the member's ques- tion is that we have, in examining and looking for those opportunities, endeavoured to recognize the pressure that front-line delivery agencies are facing, and by that I mean the health authorities. In the midst of his question the member pointed out that in the budget introduced in 2012 there was an allocation over three years provided to health authorities that is diff erent in this budget.

What we have, though, within the Health Ministry, sought to ensure is that the allocations to the health author- ities have not changed, on the basis that they represent the agency responsible for the front-line delivery of services. Th e last thing I'll say is this. I won't ask the member to endorse this on the record, but you can't ever spend enough in health care. Th ere will always be a demand for more, such that the pressure on other governmental agencies and other services that the state seeks to pro- vide to people is constant.

It is impacting on those other agencies and those other services that people expect from government. Th e imperative, in my view, to address the overall in- creases and manage the overall increases in the health care budget emanates both from the need to protect the taxpayer from spiralling costs and also to provide cit- izens who are depending on other services delivered by government from the assault on their capabilities that spiralling health care expenditures represent. Th ose are the things that we're trying to manage.

British Columbia Debates400 Thursday, July 11, 2013 M. Farnworth: Th ere are a few points I want to re- spond to in the minister's answer. Th e fi rst one I'll touch on: you could always spend all the money you want in health care. No one is going to disagree with that. Th e question, though, is the budget- ary expenditure that has taken place. How is it arrived at? How is it determined? How do you go, in a three-year fi scal plan…? Not back in '05 and '06, which were diff erent sets of cir- cumstances, but we are now here seven, eight years later in diff erent circumstances.

But in '09 the budget had a very small increase — I think about 0.8 percent was the actual increase — and the result was that aft er the elec- tion there were signifi cant cuts that took place. I may not be completely accurate on the point, but the diff erence between the year preceding, in '08, and then the '09 election was signifi cant. Th e result was that aft er '09 there were cuts in health care in British Columbia. Again, we have gone through an election where in 2012 the government said that in 2013 we will be look- ing at a 3.7 percent increase.

Instead, they come up with 2.6 percent. [1455] Th e question I want to know is: how is that percentage determined? Was it determined on the basis of a num- ber we are trying to achieve in the overall budget? We've got a defi cit that we want to meet, and we've got to take out a number to get a balanced budget that you want to table, which is going to mean Health is going to get 2.6. Whatever the pressures are, that's what they've got to get and that's what we're going to make work.

Or was there a series of areas where we know that we are going to remove services that are going to help us bend that cost curve down? Th e argument about bend- ing a cost curve down in Health is not new. It's something that every government in this country is dealing with. Th e question is: how is it being done? It's not something you're doing on an ad hoc basis year by year and decid- ing: "We'll do it now." Th at's why the government has three-year plans — so you can have some sort of expectation of what is hap- pening. Th e question still is there. Why last year at 3.7 and this year, 2.6?

I don't want to get into Health estimates debate, which we could very easily do. But particularly, the minister knows that the debate in health care spending has been moving the system from an acute care system to a chronic disease management system and the requirement for key investments to be made in that in order for that transition to take place. Th at's all I will say on that. I know that the minister is aware of that. It still comes back to that question. At what point was the decision made to go to 2.6 percent, and how was it achieved?

Did the minister have a look at the impact of that kind of bending of the cost curve, as he likes to use, on services that people are depending on in this province? Hon. M. de Jong: I don't think the member either meant to or did in fact suggest this, but I do want to em- phasize one thing as it relates to the fi scal plan and the reference to past circumstances where the election cycle interfered with the budgeting cycle. It is simply…. I hope that the member will agree with this. Th ere has been no change between the February budget and this document. I didn't think he suggested that or meant to suggest it.

Th e rate of growth and the overall expenditure remain the same. How does one arrive at the number? I wouldn't want to suggest to the member that I or the ministry didn't begin with the proposition or the objective of trying to reduce further the rate of growth. Th at clearly was part of the objective.

I have referred to some of the areas where an analysis was done around the possibility of further savings, and that is factored into what is achievable. [1500] Th e decision to save the health authorities harmless is, by necessity, factored in because it reduces the opportun- ity to achieve additional savings in those areas. Th e other thing that I would refer the member to — be- cause it is something that we take into account in assess- ing the achievability of the target — is actually the public accounts themselves and the underspend. Health.

Because of the size of the budget — and the member knows this from the time he spent in that chair — even a very small percentage of underspend results in signifi cant…. It's generally hundreds of millions of dollars. One has to be careful about that because, at a certain point, ensuring the target is achievable…. One has to be careful that that is so. But the comparison between the growth in the budgeted amounts and the growth in the actual expenditures is an important consideration, I would submit, in determining the achievability of the tar- gets that have been set out in the budget.

All of those are factors that have been taken into account. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's comments around further savings and future savings. Th ere's a fl ip side to that coin, which is further pressures and future pressures, which can very easily and very quickly off set the savings side. Right now there are two significant cost-pressure items on the budget. One is the physician master agree- ment, and the other is the contract signed with the nurses.

Again, it comes back to: the government is aware of those commitments, of those cost pressures, when in '12 they are saying that we need 3.7 percent in fi scal year '13-14 to meet the commitments, to meet the service levels in the province of British Columbia. So how did the government intend to meet those pres- sures within this framework when they know that they're again at 3.7 percent and now are saying: "No, no, no. We can do this all within 2.6 percent"?

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 11, 2013 401 Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member correctly refers to one of the areas that are a pressure. I will say this. I'll refi ne the description of the pressure a little bit. Th e physician master agreement that is in place now is achievable, accountable, within the budget. Th e two-year reopener that kicks in — and the negotiations around that — next year represents a pressure, and one that will have to be managed. It will infl uence the nature of the discussions that take place.

I am certain that they will be, as always, interesting and passionate discussions. [1505] Th e medical profession, as I have learned, is a complex entity, where the interests and approaches of the various component parts are not always directly aligned with one another. I guess that's a long-winded way of saying that there's a fi nite pie, and everyone wants their piece.

Th ere are two dimensions to the negotiation — the one that says, "How big are you going to grow the pie?" and the other one that says: "How much bigger is my piece of the pie going to be?" Both dimensions infl uence the dis- cussion that takes place, or the dynamic that exists with respect to the negotiation. I expect that'll be the case go- ing forward next year. Just to the point, though, that is related to this that we were talking to earlier.

If we examine the increase of, for example, the 2012 budget and compare it between the budgeted amount and what was actually spent in the fi s- cal year, year-over-year, because of the underspend, the increase is actually considerably less. Th en it is not 3.7. It is actually 2-point-something. I don't have it here, but it is 2-point-something as opposed to 3-point-something.

I think it is entirely legitimate for the member, as part of a budgeting discussion and budget exercise, to pose the question: in the area of public policy and public ex- penditure that engulfs the largest portion of the budget, how confi dent can you be, and on what basis are you say- ing this is achievable? I've tried to off er a description of the considerations that have gone into arriving at the number and also high- lighted the fact that given the record of underspend, we believe that the targets are achievable.

I will not pretend, particularly within the ministry and centralized oper- ations, that it won't create pressure and that there won't be an ongoing requirement to fi nd innovative ways to ad- dress the pressure. Th at is clearly going to remain a fea- ture of public health care and public health care spending not just in British Columbia but across Canada. M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his answer. Well, the physicians….

At the end of the day, what the minister is saying is that those negotiations with phys- icians are going to be taking place but there's not antici- pation of additional moneys within this budget to meet that. Th at is going to be a signifi cant pressure that's going to have to be managed very carefully if this budget is to meet its targets. Th e minister and the Minister of Health, I think, have quite the job ahead of them. Th e other part of the equation, or the other pressure I mentioned, was the nurses. Again, the contract that was signed commits the government to making signifi cant investments in hiring.

I think it's 2,150. Again, within the development of the health budget in the Ministry of Finance, how is that factored into their calculations of achieving this year's budget? Hon. M. de Jong: Again, an accurate description of a real pressure — a real requirement but also a real pres- sure.

It's one of the reasons that led to the decision with- in the internal budget to maintain the transfers to health authorities at the levels that had been communicated to the health authorities as part of the 2012 budget and to not visit reductions upon them. [1510] Th at doesn't mean it'll be easy for the health authorities either. Th ere is a desire to deploy nurses and nurse prac- titioners in ways that historically haven't taken place, but there are costs associated with doing so. Th at's why we've maintained the increases in the health authority budgets that were included in the fi scal plan in 2012. M.

Farnworth: So if I understand…. Th e minister, I'm sure, will correct me if I'm wrong. He's saying that the health authorities are going to get the same allocation and they're doing the same level of services that they have been doing. "But by the way, you're going to have to ab- sorb the cost of the nurses' contract within your existing budget." Is that the approach the minister is taking? Hon. M. de Jong: Well, they are responsible — the health authorities, that is — for the bulk of the front- line services to patients.

Th at is why funding increases for the health authorities are being maintained as per Budget 2012. For '13-14 and '14-15, I believe the average increases will be 4.3 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively, to the health authorities. So yes, from within those increased allocations, they will be obliged to fi nd the means to achieve on the tar- gets that have been set for the deployment of additional nurses and nurse practitioners. M. Farnworth: I think the health authorities are going to have an awful lot of pressures to deal with.

I mean, the minister has talked about savings, but what we're seeing is an awful lot of pressures being added onto the system. I'd like to ask about another area of pressure that we know is coming, and that is transfer payments. Th ere has been a reduction. Th e minister in his budget speech stated a reduction in transfer payments, which impacts on the revenue side, on health care. I'd like to know: are those separate from the reduction in the Canada health transfers that, when he was minister, he would have been familiar with? Th ese other transfer payments the minister

British Columbia Debates402 Thursday, July 11, 2013 talked about — are they separate from those reductions coming in health? Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. I want to make sure that I properly understood the question. If I haven't, the member will, I'm sure, correct me. Th e budget, when it was delivered in February, built into it the data, the numbers, we had relating to health transfers from the federal government. Th ere is an ad- justment that has been made relating to updated cen- sus numbers, but I think that is a diff erent thing.

I'm not sure that's what the member referred to in the question. [1515] We have continued to emphasize to the federal gov- ernment our concern that reliance on a strict per-capita methodology for the calculation of provincial transfers is problematic and visits negatively in a disproportionate way on jurisdictions with a much higher seniors popula- tion. I hope somewhere in there I have addressed part of what the member was inquiring about. M. Farnworth: No, and again, it's another pressure on the budget. In the case of the general transfers, it's on the global budget.

On the health side of things, it impacts directly on the health budget. But in terms of the overall budget, the changes…. Th e minister has said that those are factored into this year's budget document, if I'm not mistaken. I see him nodding. Can he give me some indi- cation as to the size of the impact that has to be factored into the budget? Hon. M. de Jong: I'll try and answer on the basis of what I think the member is interested in. Hopefully, this will be helpful to him. Th e federal government have indicated that they are going to do two things, and one infl uences the size of the pie.

Th ey've indicated that the usual 6 percent increas- es in the size, the global amount, of the federal health transfer will not be maintained. It will shift to a diff er- ent formula, and the global amount of the transfer won't be increasing 6 percent year over year. Th at's one thing they've done. Th ey've also said that they are going to change the methodology around how the pie is divvied up amongst the provinces.

Th at is where we have focused our concern, because we believe the impact of that in the fi rst fi scal year when it happens, '14-15, is for us in the neighbour- hood of $200 million to $250 million. [1520] We have addressed that. We've budgeted on the basis that we experience that impact. It doesn't mean we agree with it. We continue to highlight, for the federal govern- ment, why we think that is unfair and unwise on the part of the federal government to make that shift .

I can't tell the member thus far that we have enjoyed success in securing a diff erent response from the federal government, but that is the impact that we have calculat- ed on the decision that the federal government has made to alter the manner in which the great Canadian Health Transfer pie is divvied up. M. Farnworth: In this particular case not only is there an impact on revenue to the province; it is another cost pressure that has to be absorbed within the…. Interjection. M. Farnworth: Y eah, exactly — because there is less revenue. But the bottom line is that we have to absorb it.

Th at's going to put additional pressures on a system and make challenges for the budget in terms of…. Interjection. M. Farnworth: Y eah, but again, it comes back to…. We were aware last year when we had a number. Th is year we have a number. I know the minister likes to refer to the underspend. Th e point I'm getting to now is that underspend is under an awful lot of pressure from an awful lot of diff erent sources.

Th e reality is, you know, the minister may feel very confi dent that he can control costs in a particular area, but with so many balls up in the air, it doesn't take many to fall before all of a sudden your targets are in big trouble. I'm mindful of the time that we've got. I'd like to, on the impact side — this is not related to health — ask a few questions about another area where federal govern- ment decisions impact on the province. We have seen it in health.

But federal legislation, par- ticularly in areas where the federal government is quite keen to pass legislation, when they don't have to worry or concern themselves with the fi nancial impact of their legislation, is something that they have discovered, I think, with increasing frequency over the last number of years. Can the minister tell us: has the ministry been doing any in-depth studies on the fi nancial impact of federal government legislative changes as to how they impact on British Columbia? Th e obvious one is on the crime legislation, for example. Th at's an example.

Th ere are other areas as well, where the government and the feds have passed legislation, and they impact directly on the provinces and in terms of how that's being dealt with and what studies are being done. Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, he correctly points out that in our great Canadian Confederation family there is an interrelationship between what various lev- els of government decide and how it impacts one on the other. [1525]

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 11, 2013 403 We do try to remain vigilant and analyze. Th e mem- ber mentioned one relating to public safety initiatives that the federal government has taken. I have to say — in fairness, I remember having this discussion at a federal- provincial meeting — in large measure, many of them are initiatives that the provinces themselves had asked for. So as contrary as this might seem to the great Canadian tradition, one needs to be fair to the federal government when they have responded.

Here's an area, though, that we have communicated directly with the federal government and that I think the member himself has alerted folks to. Th at is the ne- gotiations that are taking place for a free trade agreement with Europe — which, by the way, I and the government are supportive of.

We have alerted the federal government that in the give-and-take that comprise those sorts of negotiations, if one of the gives relates to rules around intellectual property and patent protection and it operates in a way to increase in a signifi cant way the cost of pharmaceut- ical products to the provinces, we will be anxious to en- gage in a discussion about how the federal government, having acted pursuant to its constitutional authority on trade and commerce, is going to compensate the prov- inces for the negative fi scal impact that results from that. Now, where that goes and how that materializes….

I know the federal government at one time was anxious to see these negotiations resolved by the fall. I have not re- ceived an update on whether or not that is still feasible or whether they have fallen behind. But that is an area that we are tracking fairly closely and have provided notice to the federal government of our concern. M. Farnworth: I just want to deal with that one for a moment. So then, has the ministry done an analysis of the potential impact to the province in terms of dollar fi g- ures that they are potentially looking at, from the discus- sions they've had with the federal government? Hon.

M. de Jong: In the example we are dealing with, around pharmaceutical products and intellectual property and patent protection, I know that the Health Ministry, at the time this came up, had conducted some rudimentary analysis. The challenge is that without knowing the end point or where the negotiations end up, it's diffi cult to know with certainty what the impact will be.

Th e essence of the concern, however, as I think the member appreciates, is that if it takes longer for a generic drug product to be available on the market, the province will be obliged to provide funding for higher-cost, brand- name products for a longer period of time, and that will have a cost analysis. Th e member was perhaps, over the last number of months or years, approached by industry folks who oc- cupy both sides of that argument.

Th e analysis of what that impact will be literally varies from zero to $1 billion, depending on which side of the argument, the industry side of the argument, people are on. [1530] I think it is fair to say that there is an impact there, which is why we put the federal government on notice. But I don't want to suggest to the member that there is a…. At this point, in the absence of knowing what the agreement with Europe is, I don't want to suggest that there is a terribly reliable fi gure that the Health Ministry, or us for that matter, has arrived at. M. Farnworth: A couple of questions here.

One, if the ministry does get more concrete information, if they would be able to make that available, that would be ap- preciated. Th e second, though, is back to the more domestic front. It is the impact of federal legislation on current budgeting procedures. For example, the public safety legislation. As the minister stated, it contained a lot of provisions that provinces asked for and that we on both sides of this House were supportive of — but, at the same time, oft en bundled with other legislation that was added at federal desires, which again still has an impact on the provinces.

My question is: do we have a much better analysis of the impact of that legislation and its costs that it's put upon the system here in British Columbia? How is that factored into our budget process, and can he give me a number? Hon. M. de Jong: Two dimensions to this, and they are, I think, dealt with slightly diff erently.

In circumstances like the example the hon. member mentioned, where policy choices made by the federal government will or could possibly impact on expenditures by the provincial Crown — and I think that's the example in the case of public safety — what we rely upon is an analysis by the line ministry to articulate what that creates in terms of cost pressures or what they anticipate it may create in terms of cost pressures. Th e Finance Ministry….

I don't like doing this when the questions are reasonable, but I'm not in the best pos- ition, individually, to talk about that, where department- ally, they have done the analysis on public policy choices Ottawa makes and how that impacts on expenditures.

Th e Finance Ministry, though, would certainly be at the forefront in analyzing revenue transfer changes that de- rive from public policy choices in Ottawa. [1535] In the case of a taxation change, an agricultural pro- gram and decisions that the federal government makes that impact on the fl ow of revenue from Ottawa, the Finance Ministry would be at the forefront analyzing and determining what that is. I'm probably less well equipped to provide the mem- ber with a detailed analysis of what the impact of a piece

British Columbia Debates404 Thursday, July 11, 2013 of federal legislation has in generating additional costs in an individual department of the provincial government. Th at's a diff erentiation I would make. M. Farnworth: I understand what the member is say- ing. Again, I'm not trying to stray into the estimates of another ministry but rather to get an understanding. Even within the ministry — let's say it is Public Safety or Transportation, for example — they have a budget which….

Y ou know, you go through the Treasury Board process, which you're the key part of, and they're provid- ing a level of service or services, public policy programs that government has decided they believe are important and need to be funded. Th en there's legislative change, public policy change in Ottawa, which puts in place additional costs on that par- ticular ministry's ability to meet the priorities that gov- ernment has set here in the province of British Columbia.

So it has one of two choices — either to absorb that in- ternally and cut existing programs, to absorb the costs to provide the functions that those costs are impacting on. And again, that's something they may choose to do. But at some point they're saying to the Minister of Finance, "Look, we can't continue to do this. Th is is hav- ing an impact on the job that we're supposed to be doing, the services that the province has identifi ed as priorities," and therefore, they're coming to you and saying: "We've got cost pressures, and we're not able to absorb them anymore.

Th erefore, we either need a lift or government has got to understand that we aren't going to be able to provide the same level of service." In that sense, do you have the ability to say: "Look, you know, public policy changes have resulted in X num- ber of pressures overall on government that we've had to absorb"? [1540] Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to committee for the de- lay. We're trying to identify…. Th ere is a program that I think represents an example of what the member is driving at here and that I think is an accurate example of the concern that he expressed.

I'm just not able to refer to it by its proper name just yet. But where the federal government has altered the manner in which the program will be made available and deliv- ered, and gone from a particular funding model to one that requires matching funding from the province, that clearly has the potential to have an impact. I'm happy to identify that in a little more detail than I…. This is the labour market development agreement with the federal government, and it speaks to some of the changes that they are making in that program that have an impact.

In some cases it may alter the manner in which those programs are delivered. When the federal government has made that particular change, it requires us…. We rely upon the line ministry involved to do an analysis of what that impact is, to what extent it does create a pressure, and then we have to as- certain how that pressure is going to be met. So I think that might be an example — I hope that's an example — of the kind of scenario that the member was describing. M. Farnworth: Y eah, that's a useful example. I think it helps to illustrate the point. Th at is, we here in British Columbia….

Th e government presents a budget each year to deliver services that British Columbians rely on. Key areas that matter to people, whether it's social ser- vices, education, health — that's what they rely on. Th e budget is presented with a set of assumptions, fore- casts, in terms of revenue and growth. All those things come together. At the same time, Ottawa makes public policy decisions which can impact on us, and they've done that in the last few years. Th ere's been much public discussion around the full nature of that impact from a fi scal point of view.

So my concern is to ensure that the Ministry of Finance is taking a good look at those impacts and what those impacts do in terms of our budget, in terms of us being able to deliver on the priorities that we determine, here in British Columbia, are important — particularly when there has been, in the public debate, a considerable amount of discussion around the exact amount, the dol- lar fi gure, that those impacts have on us.

I think one of the things that would be useful is for the ministry to be able to undertake some analysis in that area that would inform this House of some of those cost pressures that face government but, just as importantly, would inform the public on those impacts. I think that that would contribute to a better understanding of some of the fi scal issues that face us here in B.C. I would ask the minister to take that into considera- tion, because I think it's important. I know we don't have a lot of time, so if the minister could make a response to that, I'd appreciate that. [1545] Hon.

M. de Jong: I think it's a legitimate issue. It clear- ly has an impact on the calculation and the analysis that goes into making the budget. At the risk of presenting a ready-made target for the hon. member, I should probably repeat in here what I have said elsewhere, for his criticism or comment. My and the government's oft -articulated submission to the federal government goes like this: "We are working hard to achieve a balanced budget in British Columbia. Th at requires us to make choices that some people agree with and many people disagree with.

"We actually expect and are supportive of you" — the federal government — "taking the steps necessary to bring the national budget into balance once again and understand that there are tough choices to be made there.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, July 11, 2013 405 But we believe Canada is better off , stronger, more resili- ent when we have a balanced budget nationally. "Our vigilance and much of our attention in working with you to try to help the country and the national gov- ernment to achieve that objective is directed at ensur- ing that the pain associated with achieving that target is shared equitably across the country.

Th at's why we have made submissions around things like new methodolo- gies for the health transfer and where we think that per- haps that principle of equity isn't quite being achieved." I think it's fair ball for me to disclose to the member that I have not, and the government has not, been ad- monishing the federal government to turn on the spend- ing tap on the operations side in what we might call an irresponsible way.

We have been broadly supportive of their eff orts and the federal minister's eff orts to achieve balance, as we have here, but recognize the tough deci- sions that have to be made and advocate strongly that the impacts of those decisions need to be visited equally and equitably upon all jurisdictions in Canada. We'll con- tinue to be vigilant in that respect. M. Farnworth: We could get into quite a discussion on this. Unfortunately, time is limited. I wouldn't be sur- prised if we have a more fulsome discussion in the spring session, when there's more time for our estimates process than we've got right now.

Interjection. M. Farnworth: Th at will be in the spring. Even if there's a fall session, it would be in the spring, unfortunately. Interjection. M. Farnworth: Exactly — unless we do another budget. Somehow, Members, I don't think anyone wants to do another budget. Th at actually just speaks to, I think, very quickly, the comment on issues around budgeting and electoral dates, but again, that is for another time and another place. Within the budget we've talked a bit about the forecasts. We've talked a bit about some of the expenditures and the government's rationale around why expenditures are the way they are.

Th ere are another couple of areas that are also key. Revenues is clearly one of those. Debt is another area. I'd like to touch on those. [1550] Th e government is claiming…. A key part of the gov- ernment's pre-election agenda was that we were going to be debt-free. Y et when we look at the fi nancial docu- ments, debt is projected to be increasing from about $57 billion at the beginning of this fi scal to almost $70 billion by the end of the fi scal plan. Y et all we have been hearing about is debt-free B.C. So how will $70 billion of debt be eliminated in the coming years? Hon.

M. de Jong: I'm glad we're having the discussion, and we can have it on the basis of total provincial debt or taxpayer-supported debt. Th e numbers are clear. Th ey are set out on page 128 of the document. In the years covered by the fi scal plan, the debt goes up. Th ere's no question about that. It goes up with respect to the capital expenditures that the gov- ernment is embarking upon. I think we have an $18.6 billion capital program — hospitals, schools, roads. We are building. In fact, we are building, arguably, at an un- precedented rate.

We are very cognizant of the measure that most econo- mists seem to gravitate towards in assessing the health of our budget from a debt point of view, and that is the debt-to-GDP ratio, which at one point, four or fi ve or six years ago, dropped as low as 13 percent. I think at one point in the late '90s it got up to about 22 or 23 percent and dropped as low as 13 percent. A purposeful decision was made in the aft ermath of the '08 circumstance, the recession, to accelerate spend- ing.

Happily, because the debt had been paid down during the years with signifi cant surpluses, we had on that basis a lot more room to manoeuvre than most other jurisdic- tions, and we took advantage of that room. Th e member will know that in the budget we now see the debt-to-GDP in the fi scal plan top out at 18.5 percent, which is slightly higher than the 18.3 percent we projected in February. The rating agencies are watching us, which is an- other reason we're watching it, because we do covet the triple-A credit rating that we earned through the last 12 years.

It saves taxpayers tens of millions of dol- lars in debt-servicing costs that can be devoted to pro- gramming, to the delivery of services.

Th e political criticism and some of the other commen- tary seems to be: "How can you talk about debt reduction and debt elimination in the context of a fi scal plan that shows debt going up, and isn't that fundamentally incon- sistent?" Well, it might be on the face of it, but I hope the member will accept that we have always linked that dis- cussion to the development of this unique economic op- portunity that we are confronted by in LNG. [1555] I will say again in this House very clearly that the signifi cant revenues that we believe the public, via the Crown and government, will derive from the export of liquefi ed natural gas do not accrue or begin to fl ow, if we take advantage of the opportunity and move forward, for another seven or eight years.

So they are not con- tained or projected or included in the budget, the fi scal plan before us. Our moving our debt-to-GDP ratio down in the short term is dependent upon our conventional economy and our conventional expenditure control and discipline and, for that reason, will occur at a much slower rate than in years where signifi cant additional revenues begin to fl ow via LNG.

British Columbia Debates406 Thursday, July 11, 2013 I will say this. Th e LNG opportunity is real not because I say so or someone on the government bench says so, but because companies that operate on a worldwide basis are here on the verge of making investment decisions worth tens of millions of dollars. When companies like Shell and Petronas expend the eff ort…. None of this is a guarantee, but it does render it, in my view, a very real opportunity that is not mythical and not decades away. Th e infrastructure that will be required to facilitate this, we hope, will begin being constructed next year.

We haven't, by the way, in the fi scal plan endeavoured to quantify any of the incremental fi scal benefi ts that fl ow from that activity either. Not counting your chickens is pretty sound advice in scenarios like the situations like this. But to have set the objective as part of the development of a liquefi ed natural gas industry…. To set the objective openly and candidly at the front end — to say that if we can make this happen, if we can be in this race and suc- ceed and make it happen, as a fi rst priority we will devote these incremental revenues to the payment down of debt — I think is legitimate.

Does it show up in a three-year fi scal plan? No, it does not. No, it does not. In fact, as the member has point- ed out, over the course of the three-year fi scal plan, the debt grows. It does so at rates that are the envy of most jurisdictions in Canada. I was in Toronto. Th e member may appreciate that the Ontario Finance Minister would love to be dealing with the scenario we have before us, as would most Finance Ministers in the country. So the observation is correct. Th e debt in this three- year fi scal plan increases.

I would submit that it increases at rates that are reasonable and manageable, although the fi scal plan demands, and we will ensure, that the debt-to- GDP ratio begins coming down aft er next year. The last thing I'll say is with a measure of pride. Although our budgeted debt-to-GDP ratios are revealed in this, I can't think of a year in the last fi ve or maybe beyond where we haven't outperformed that, where the debt-to-GDP has not been lower than what is set out in the budget. So if that record is maintained, then the debt- to-GDP ratio for the fi scal year, when it caps, will be less than 18.5 percent.

But that will require, again, vigilance and discipline on our part. M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for his comments. [1600] I guess the issue is that the budget and, in this case, the debt projections of the budget take place within a context of the throne speech. Th ey take place within the context of an election campaign. Th ey take place within the con- text of the Premier's comments, which are that we will be debt-free within 15 years, at a time

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20130711pm-Hansard-v2n7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20130711pm Hansard v2n7
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	509365e94b11aeec2857bdb4362d5e4eb403a6d9

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).