2005 Legislative Session: 6th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 23

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

B.C. Youth Parliament

V. Anderson

B.C. Winter Games in Port Alberni

G. Trumper

Riverview Hospital

R. Stewart

Oral Questions

Funding for long-term care beds in

Victoria

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Bond

Access to Crown land for ranching

industry

J. Brar

Hon. G. Abbott

J. MacPhail

B.C. Hydro purchase of wind-generated

electricity

H. Long

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates (No. 10):

Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. J. Les

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 10) (Bill 17)

Hon. C. Hansen

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 10) (Bill 17)

Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 10) (Bill 17)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 10) (Bill 17)

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates (No. 11):

Ministry of Human

Resources

Hon. S. Brice

J. Brar

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

Supplementary Estimates (No. 11):

Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

J. Brar

Hon. R.

Coleman

Supplementary Estimates (No. 11):

Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development

Supplementary Estimates (No. 11):

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Abbott

Supplementary Estimates (No. 11):

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 11) (Bill 18)

Hon. C. Hansen

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 11) (Bill 18)

Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 11) (Bill 18)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 11) (Bill 18)

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases,

2004-2005, Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 19)

Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of the Whole House

Crown Counsel Agreement Continuation

Act (Bill 21)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

[ Page 12237 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2005

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

H. Bloy: Mr. Speaker, it is a special honour for me today

to introduce two constituents from my riding. One is a young gentleman, Greg von

Euw, who is 13 years old, a local streamkeeper and local hero. His mother,

Nancy, is joining him in the House today. Would the House please make them

welcome.

B. Kerr: I have two introductions to make today. I have

Bill Whitfield, a new constituent in my riding who has moved to the beautiful

city of Langford, and his mother, Joyce Whitfield, who is visiting from

Lanchester, Durham, England. I'd ask the House to please make them both feel

very welcome.

Hon. W. McMahon: It's not often that I get to introduce

somebody from my riding, Columbia River–Revelstoke. Joining us in the House

today are Chief Paul Sam from the Shuswap band in Invermere, Grant Costello from

Invermere and Matthew Ney from Kimberley. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. P. Wong: It is my pleasure to welcome to the

Legislature today a group of 87 grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper

Secondary School in my riding, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Burnell, Mr.

Ferguson, Ms. Dennis and Mr. Chapman. Sir Charles Tupper School is a community

of 1,200 students. About half the students can speak different languages in

a very warm welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Today a number of visitors are in the

gallery, and while I'm not sure where they're all seated, I understand they

certainly are in a position to watch us here as we deliberate and have question

period. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Don Mclean and friend Ian

Smillie, who is a member of the Order of Canada for his work in international

development and a recent author of Charity of Nations .

I would also like the House to welcome Torey Klein, who is my

constituency assistant, as well as some very good friends of mine, Dr. Sam Macey

and his wife, Mrs. June Macey. Would the House please make them all very

welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: I have three introductions today. Joining us

in the House — although they no longer live in my riding; they are now in the

riding of the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill — are my two daughters, Donna and

Diana Bell, and their friend Josh Comer.

B. Kerr: Well, this isn't an introduction, but today we had

a beautiful set of roses and a balloon sent to the east annex to the member for

Surrey-Tynehead. Before the rumour mill really starts, we confirmed that they

are indeed from his wife on the occasion of his birthday. I would ask the House

to please give a happy birthday to the member for Surrey-Tynehead.

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, in the House today I am pleased

to welcome and introduce 14 teachers from across British Columbia who are

participating in the second annual B.C. Teachers Institute on Parliamentary

Democracy. They will be with us for the remainder of this week expanding their

knowledge of both our parliamentary and political systems. They are joined by

five of their peers, who are acting as facilitators, and three observers from

Ontario and Saskatchewan. I trust many of you will have the opportunity to meet

with them this evening in the Ned de Beck Lounge. Would the House please make

them very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) B.C. YOUTH PARLIAMENT

V. Anderson: For most of the ten years that I have been

sitting in this Legislature, on December 27 I have been here to celebrate with

the members of the British Columbia Youth Parliament, along with other members

of the Legislature. In particular, I mention the Minister of State for Early

Childhood Development, who was a premier in Youth Parliament in her earlier

days.

I bring greetings, Mr. Speaker, because this is a very special

group of young people from across our province that meet each year during the

legislative session. Also, I have had the privilege for a number of years to be

the lieutenant-governor not only in the session in Victoria but in the Vancouver

region, joining with the young people there during the year's activities.

It has been a great honour to have been associated with these

dedicated youth, who take their holiday time each December to meet in Youth

Parliament to debate and pass legislation on issues of concern to them in

British Columbia. They also make plans for their projects to be service

volunteers throughout B.C. during the year, serving people of all ages but

particularly as youth serving youth.

A major program that they have undertaken for many years is Camp

Phoenix, a summer camp planned by and staffed by the youth themselves. Each year

at Camp Phoenix they give the opportunity for other young people and children

who would not normally be able to get to camp in the summer to have this very

important experience. The members of Youth Parliament undertake to raise the

dollars needed to fund this important project. They do a variety of fundraising

initiatives across the province, particularly the Sweet Dreams Dessert and

Auction evening, which they hold every year.

[ Page 12238 ]

This year it is on Friday, June 10, in Richmond, British Columbia.

At their annual fundraising event, they gather with their families and friends

and particularly with many of the alumni of Youth Parliament. They return to

meet some of the lifelong friends they made because of Youth Parliament, some of

them even becoming their lifelong partners.

B.C. WINTER GAMES IN PORT ALBERNI

G. Trumper: Today it is appropriate that I speak about the

Winter Games, as it is the Sport B.C. awards today in Vancouver.

In 2004, Port Alberni was the host of the B.C. Winter Games — the

fourth B.C. Games that the Alberni Valley has hosted. Last Thursday was the

final event of the games, the awarding of the legacy funds. The board, under the

great leadership of Dewayne Parfitt, brought to the table…. The legacy was

$135,350, and $34,000 was given to community groups such as the Western

Vancouver Island Heritage Society, the Port Alberni Association for Children

with Developmental Disabilities and the Community Arts Council. And $101,000

went to the Sports Legacy Fund.

Funding was given to 14 sports groups and to the Kidsport

foundation, which will enable young people with limited means to participate in

the sport of their choice. The B.C. Games are an integral part of B.C. society,

encouraging people of all ages and abilities to participate.

One day some of these young people who participated in the games

will be recipients at the B.C. sport awards, and I would just like to mention

two from the B.C. high school wrestling championships that just took place

recently. Pat McEvay and Bob Brown both won their weight classes. The B.C. Games

Society and the communities that participate are one of the greatest assets in

British Columbia.

[1415]

RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL

R. Stewart: Our government recognizes that mental illness

is a serious problem. Left untreated, this illness can lead to severe social

problems including homelessness and drug addiction.

In February, I joined the Minister of State for Mental Health and

Addiction Services for a tour of Riverview Hospital in Coquitlam. That facility,

located in my riding of Coquitlam-Maillardville, has been serving British

Columbians with mental illness for almost a hundred years. During this visit the

minister of state and I were able to witness firsthand the outstanding service

provided by the 1,800 doctors, nurses, staff and volunteers to patients and

their families right across British Columbia.

However, we also saw, firsthand, facilities that were built as

long as 80 years ago, when the model of care in mental health was very

different. Some of these buildings must be replaced with more modern facilities

that more appropriately respond to the needs of patients, their families and the

community.

We also saw Connolly Lodge. When our government opened that

facility three years ago, it was the first new building constructed at Riverview

in 50 years. Connolly Lodge has served as a model for similar new mental health

facilities in Prince George, Saanich and Kamloops, allowing patients to

transition closer to their communities.

During the nineties a process was undertaken to close Riverview

Hospital and dispose of the facility. During that time many patients were moved

out of the institution. In 1999 the Vancouver Sun had this to say about

the government's handling of that plan:

"Facilities like

Riverview, which once housed 5,000 patients, were emptied. The hospital now has

about 800 beds, and the 4,200 or so other people who would have been there under

24-hour care are now in the community, dependent on services that turn on the

answering machine after 5 p.m. These offices are staffed by caseworkers

responsible for 60 to 80 clients each — five times what their caseload should

be."

What happened to those patients who were discharged from

Riverview Hospital during the nineties? Sadly, many of these former patients are

now homeless and living on the streets in communities across the province. Many

of these now suffer from addictions in addition to their mental illness. We

cannot allow a repeat of what happened to Riverview's patients in the nineties.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR LONG-TERM CARE BEDS

IN VICTORIA

J. Kwan: Everyone knows that the government broke its

long-term care promise. We've seen the evidence of that in Surrey. We've seen it

in Penticton, and we're now seeing it right here in Victoria. Not only has this

government broken its promise to build 5,000 new long-term care beds, it's

actually cut 242 beds from the capital regional district. That's a net reduction

of beds.

We know that officials in the capital region have been sounding

the alarm for some time. CRD health officials are urgently requesting that the

government commit the funding for 300 new long-term care beds for the region

immediately. Will the minister drop the rhetoric, stop blaming others and

immediately commit to funding the 300 beds?

Hon. S. Bond: We have a plan in place in British

Columbia to meet the needs of seniors in this province. In fact, the Vancouver

Island health authority is working on an aggressive plan.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we had extra work to do. While the members

opposite want to continue to groan regularly in this House, we're not going to

forget to remind them of the dismal…

[ Page 12239 ]

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S. Bond: …record they had, of the ten years that they

were in Victoria.

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

supplementary question.

J. Kwan: The minister likes to claim that they've been

doing planning all along. The only planning that they have done is to actually

cut capital funding. What is the minister waiting for?

According to Jeremy Tate of the capital regional district, the

property to build 300 long-term care beds is ready for development now. What's

needed is the cash and the political will. Clearly, when the heat was turned up

in Surrey, the minister found the political will.

To the minister again: her idea of leadership on long-term care

beds is to fire CEOs — to shoot the messenger. Will she do the right thing,

listen to the advice of professionals and fund the beds now?

[1420]

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, this government brought together a

group of experts from around the world to look at a plan that addressed the

needs of seniors. In fact, for decades in this province, seniors were placed in

beds where they actually didn't get the level of care they required. We have

said that it is going to take us longer because the condition in which we found

the beds was far worse than we anticipated. We will make our commitment by the

year 2008.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a

further supplementary.

J. Kwan: The plans are done. What the government has done

is shelve their plans. There is no funding in this year's budget to actually

support her commitment, her supposed commitment for 5,000 new beds for 2008. I

don't think the minister really understands what's at stake here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Let us hear the

question and the answer.

J. Kwan: I don't think a new toll-free line for seniors and

advice to eat fruits and vegetables is the answer that seniors and their

families are looking for.

Does the minister really think spinach and a help desk could

actually replace long-term care beds? Does the minister really think that? Will

the minister finally take a leadership role and commit funding today so that

these 300 badly needed beds can be built? A simple answer — yes or no.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we do recognize and have

recognized the need for increased funding. In fact, Vancouver Island health

authority's funding was $945 million in 2001-02, and for the fiscal year 2004-05

it has risen to $1.2 billion.

It is time for the members opposite to take some responsibility.

Let me read a quote from a previous….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Let us hear the answer, please.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's listen to an article. Let me read from

an

article in the Vancouver Province in April of 1996. Listen. "In

November the capital regional district board asked the government to start

planning for 300 new long-term care beds over the next two years. The then

Health minister replied…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S. Bond: "The then Health minister, Paul Ramsey,

replied that more beds were not a Health ministry priority."

Interjections.

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

ACCESS TO CROWN LAND

FOR RANCHING INDUSTRY

J. Brar: The Premier claims that he has only broken six

promises, but every day another one seems to pop up. The New Era document

promised to provide greater access to Crown land to protect jobs in the ranching

industry. On February 24 the B.C. Cattlemen's Association sent a report on the

state of that industry to the cabinet. Their conclusion was that the industry

has lost access to Crown land, and the industry is in jeopardy because of a

government solely preoccupied with the needs of large timber companies.

Interjections.

J. Brar: There is a question coming.

The cattle industry in this province just took another blow from

the United States today, and the industry can't even get its own government on

side. Will the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management admit that four years

of Liberal government have failed B.C. ranchers and that this is yet another

broken promise?

Hon. G. Abbott: This is a historic day. It's the first day

the NDP has ever expressed an interest in cattle ranching in this province.

Interjections.

[ Page 12240 ]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[1425]

Hon. G. Abbott: I know it only took 120 years. But it's a

very good question, and there is an answer to that question. We have had a great

relationship with the cattlemen in British Columbia. We have worked very hard,

and the Minister of Agriculture has worked very hard, through some very

difficult situations, particularly the BSE crisis. I know we both work very hard

to ensure that the cattlemen have a bright future here in British Columbia.

Among the ways — and I will speed to a conclusion here — we're going to get

there is working with them to ensure that they have the access to Crown land

that they need.

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

supplementary question.

J. Brar: Every day the answer we get is shifting blame.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Order. Let us

hear the question.

J. Brar: Every day what we hear is shifting blame, finding

scapegoats. Those are the answers we get from this government. This government

only has itself to blame for its failures and broken promises. The Cattlemen's

Association recognizes this, and so should the minister. Downsized range staff,

closed the range branch and cancelled the grazing enhancement fund — that's what

this government has done.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, time for the question, please.

J. Brar: The facts are simple. The minister knows it. Why

won't he admit that the government has failed the industry and broken yet

another new-era promise?

Hon. G. Abbott: I certainly have a lot of respect for the

opposition and their expertise with broken promises. We had a decade, I think,

of broken promises under the NDP between '91 and 2001. So there is some

acknowledged expertise there.

The fact of the matter is that we know full well that the

cattlemen need access to Crown grazing leases. We know that full well, and we're

working through some of these issues. But one of the new realities, which I know

the NDP has difficulty understanding, is that we also need to work with first

nations who have an interest in these matters as well. We are trying to ensure

that we meet the test for consultation and accommodation where appropriate with

first nations. We are working through those. But believe me, there is more

sympathy on this side of the House for cattlemen than was ever exhibited over

the last 50 years by that government.

J. MacPhail: This is a document that was sent last week

from the Cattlemen's Association to the cabinet. I heard the Finance minister

say: "Oh well, don't worry. They're all going to vote for us." That's the

arrogance of this government expressed just by the Finance minister.

The government was so proud of the new Forest and Range Practices

Act, a code that the Minister of Forests has failed to implement and has just

delayed for yet another year. According to the cattlemen, his failure is putting

ranching at risk.

Here's the real story of what's going on. As a result of the

Liberal restructuring, Crown range and land interests for the first time are

split between five government agencies. The result, according to the cattlemen,

is that the industry now under this government is "falling through the cracks."

Again to the minister: stop the arrogance. The Cattlemen's

Association report is clear. Your government received it last week. The minister

has failed to protect the industry's interest. Of the six promises the Premier

admits to breaking, where does this report fall amongst them?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is no industry that is more important

to the government of British Columbia than the cattle industry in this great

province. We know full well, unlike the former NDP government, the importance of

agriculture to this province. Their entire agricultural policy was embodied in a

place that we call Six Mile Ranch, which was all about the NDP cabinet jumping

in and interfering with agricultural land reserve decisions. That was the

penultimate point for them in agricultural policy.

[1430]

We're going to work with the cattle industry to ensure that they

have the access they need to Crown lands. For the opposition leader to confuse

this with all of the challenges we have around mountain pine beetle and other

demands on Crown land…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: …is frankly disingenuous.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary

question.

J. MacPhail: Well, the B.C. Liberal government has cut the

Forest Service so deeply that they now can't handle anything but chaos on land

use.

Here's what the B.C. Cattlemen's Association report said:

"We

have a Forest and Range Practices Act that leaves us in the unacceptable

position of being subservient to timber interests."

It goes on to say:

"Ranchers have become

poor second cousins in a ministry that has no mandate to advance the ranching

industry. On aboriginal affairs, an active BCCA committee that worked with

several current cabinet ministers when they were in opposition has been

incapacitated by government's decision to abandon all consultation process."

[ Page 12241 ]

Can the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management actually

answer and explain why the forestry portfolio has willfully allowed the ranching

industry to fall through the cracks and why his government has abandoned

ranching interests in this province?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, it's delightful to see, after only

120 years, this party discovering the importance of ranching to this province.

Clearly….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let's hear the answer.

Hon. G. Abbott: This government, upon taking office in

2001, was faced with a backlog of literally thousands of unresolved Crown tenure

applications in this province. We've cleaned up….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Abbott: We have cleaned up that mess, and we are

working with the ranching industry to ensure that they have the future they need

and the access to the Crown resource that they need far into the future,

notwithstanding the opposition.

B.C. HYDRO PURCHASE OF

WIND-GENERATED ELECTRICITY

H. Long: I have here a question from Adriane Carr…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

H. Long: …the leader of the Green Party of British

Columbia. It's a public written question to the Minister of Energy and Mines

regarding the minister's responsibility for green energy.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

H. Long: Vestas wind technologies incorporated….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. member. We will

continue when we have some semblance of order in the House.

Please start over.

H. Long: This question is from Adriane Carr, the leader of

the Green Party of British Columbia. She has a public written question to the

Minister of Energy and Mines regarding the minister's responsibility for green

energy.

Vestas wind technologies incorporated, the largest builder of wind

generator machines in the world, is willing to invest millions of dollars to

build a factory in Squamish that will create up to 185 full-time jobs. But they

won't do it unless B.C. Hydro gives a firm commitment to purchase the generated

electricity at a fair price.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

H. Long: Will your government require B.C. Hydro to

purchase at least 1,000 megawatts of wind-generated electricity at 7 cents…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

H. Long: …per kilowatt-hour…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

H. Long: …the same price as new energy products for fossil

fuel costs?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I would like to thank the member for

reading the question — one that was mailed in to the House and something that we

should be doing all the time, which we committed to.

People should know that over 90 percent of the electricity

generated in British Columbia already comes from clean sources. B.C. Hydro,

under our energy plan that we introduced in 2002, is required to acquire 50

percent of its new incremental supply from clean sources. I'm proud to say that

B.C. Hydro has accomplished 100 percent from clean sources.

B.C. Hydro also has a form of making calls for new energy, for

acquiring new energy. They will make a call for acquiring new energy. Another

1,000….

Interjection.

[1435]

Hon. R. Neufeld: You know, listen up. You had your little

day here a while ago.

They will put out to contract another 1,000 gigawatt-hours this

year and a further 1,000 gigawatt-hours next year. I invite the companies that

generate electricity with wind to bid into that fair, open process.

I have also been in touch with Vestas and asked them to come to

British Columbia, because we are world leaders in alternative energy. They have

huge opportunity here, now that we have a government that actually recognizes

alternative energy and clean energy — not like the last administration that was

here.

[End of question period.]

[ Page 12242 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Bruce: I call Committee of Supply, supplementary

estimates No. 10.

Committee of Supply

The House in Committee of Supply; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS AND

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 34(S-2): ministry operations, $108,900,000 (continued) .

J. Kwan: Yesterday we were canvassing questions around the

$66 million slush fund that exists in this minister's bailiwick. He is going to

spend and make political decisions in choosing projects and approving projects

before the election and announcing them before the election. I was asking the

minister then about the criteria for the selection process for this $66 million

pre-election slush fund. The minister listed a few things.

I'm wondering whether or not there is a written set of criteria

that one could actually go to, which the government has produced.

Hon. J. Les: Those are the same criteria that have been in

use for some time for the Canada–B.C. infrastructure program.

[1440]

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that those are exactly the

same criteria being utilized? If I can get a copy of the Canada infrastructure

program criteria, are those exactly the ones that are being used to evaluate for

project approval for this $66 million pre-election slush fund? Is that correct?

Hon. J. Les: I reiterate that the criteria for this program

are the same as those under the Canada–B.C. infrastructure program. I have no

difficulty making a copy of that available to the member as soon as possible.

J. Kwan: Good. The list of projects that the minister is

choosing from for approval for the $66 million pre-election slush fund…. Could

the minister please advise on the projects he is selecting from? Are those

projects that have been previously received by the minister in the Canada

infrastructure program or by the municipal infrastructure program? Or are they

new applications or new proposals?

Hon. J. Les: I pointed out yesterday how almost $800

million worth of projects had been approved under the previous program that we

shared with the federal government, but we had, in fact, received almost $2.7

billion worth of applications. In addition to that, applications have continued

to come in almost until the very present. We've had no shortage of applications

to evaluate and consider, and that is the list of applications we're working

from.

J. Kwan: That's not my question. My question is: is the

minister considering only applications that have already been submitted to the

government for consideration? Or are there new applications? That's what I heard

the minister say — that there are new applications. If there are new

applications, when is the deadline to stop accepting new applications?

How did the information get out to community groups and others to

invite them to submit their application for consideration? Was there a process

in place that would allow others to submit applications for consideration, given

that new applications are still coming now?

Hon. J. Les: The existing Canada–B.C. infrastructure

program…. It's been clear all along that decisions would be made within that

program until the end of June of the current calendar year. We have consistently

encouraged communities to submit applications under that program. They continue

to come in. As I've already indicated, they've been coming in until very, very

recently. Again, as I indicated earlier, we are making our selections from those

various applications that have been arriving for many, many months. There is no

shortage of applications to choose from.

J. Kwan: The minister is deliberately not answering my

question and is misconstruing what I'm asking of him, Mr. Chair. I'm not asking

whether or not there's a shortage of applications. I'm asking about what the

government is doing and where the applications are coming from.

Is he saying — and saying it clearly in this House…? Are the

applications that he's considering for this $66 million pre-election slush fund

from the Canada infrastructure grant project or the municipal infrastructure

program? Let me just stop there and let the minister answer that question

clearly. Yes or no?

[1445]

Hon. J. Les: I can just reiterate that the applications we

are considering have come in under the Canada–B.C. infrastructure program.

J. Kwan: You know, I don't know why it's so difficult for

this minister to come clean on this issue. It's a simple question. All the

minister has to say is yes or no.

Are they existing applications that have already come in for the

Canada infrastructure program? Are these new applications that are coming in?

The minister keeps on saying there are new applications coming in. Are they

still coming in now? Those applications that are coming in now — can they still

be considered?

[ Page 12243 ]

Is there no deadline for this $66 million slush fund? I suppose

the only deadline is that you have to be able to make the announcement before

the election is called. That's the only criterion in terms of time line. Is that

right?

The Chair: Hon. member, I just want to caution you for a

moment, please. You're yelling at the Chair. Can we just tone it down a tiny

bit. Take some of the aggressiveness out of your voice. You're being a little

bit aggressive. It is not necessary to yell at me or at the minister. Please —

with some caution.

Interjection.

The Chair: My point proven.

Hon. J. Les: The answer — at least, what I hope will be the

answer to the member's question, because I'm trying very hard to be as

enlightening as I can — is yes, the applications are coming in under the

Canada–B.C. infrastructure program. Yes, they continue to come in almost as we

speak. That has always been the case.

As long as I have been minister, I've been encouraging communities

around the province to send in their applications. As the member knows as well,

we have a further program that we're likely going to be engaging in with the

federal government called the municipal-rural infrastructure program. Any

community that's got its wits about it will be ensuring that they've always got

their applications in front of government.

J. Kwan: Well, I gotta tell ya. This minister said

yesterday that the Canada infrastructure program is separate from this $66

million slush fund. Then today he says, "I'm considering applications coming in

for the Canada infrastructure grant for this slush fund," except that the

process for choosing the projects would not be under the process that's being

followed under the Canada infrastructure program. It is going to be a completely

political process engaging only this minister; the Minister of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services; the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection;

and the Minister of Agriculture — just a completely political process and

different from that of the Canada infrastructure program.

If the government is actually considering and taking initiatives

and proposals from the Canada infrastructure program, why wouldn't the

government then just follow the process that was established under that program?

"No, we cannot do that," the minister says. Why? Because then that would take

out the political aspect of the approval process here to allow for this

government and this minister to choose programs they want to choose and to

announce projects less than three months before the election. That's the real

reason why. That's what you have.

The minister won't come clean and say if in fact there is an

overwhelming number of projects sitting on the docket that weren't approved

formerly. Wouldn't it make sense to choose from that list of projects that

didn't get approval earlier? No, we're not going to do that either. We're going

to open it up and invite new projects to come in. Then there is no deadline on

when new projects could come in, in terms of determination. I guess it would be

open for as long as it fits the government's political agenda.

Well, let me ask the minister this question. In question period

earlier today, we know that the government has failed to deliver its 5,000 new

long-term care beds….

The Chair: Member, please get back to debates.

J. Kwan: I am getting back to debates, Mr. Chair.

[1450]

The Chair: Member, take your seat, please. Please, we are

dealing with vote 34(S-2), not 5,000 beds. Proceed.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, take your seat, please. I'm asking you

to keep your questions focused on this vote.

J. Kwan: Well, this vote on a $66 million slush fund —

pre-election slush fund — is for community projects. That's what the minister

said yesterday — community projects that could have a wide range of

possibilities. I'm going to ask this question directly related to this bill,

related to the $66 million worth of pre-election slush fund.

The question is this. In the capital region there is a need for

300 new long-term care beds that the region is not getting funding for from this

Minister of Health or this government. The capital regional district has already

identified the need, and it's not getting a response from this Minister of

Health.

Can they apply for this $66 million slush fund to fund the 300 new

long-term care beds that are much needed here in Victoria? It would actually

help the minister and this government fulfil part of their broken promise of

delivering 5,000 new long-term care beds. There's political motivation for you.

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Chair, it has been pointed out today that

back in 1996 the government of the day, of which that member was a part, deemed

that housing project in Victoria "not to be a priority." I'm a little bit taken

aback.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please. Order. Let's hear the minister.

Hon. J. Les: I'm somewhat taken aback that the member would

raise that question. For her edification, however, under the CBCIP guidelines

those types of projects were never eligible. I think she would know that. So the

answer to her question is no.

[ Page 12244 ]

J. Kwan: It will be very interesting to note if this

government and minister will get on record and say, "No, those 300 beds are not

actually priority," and they won't do anything about it. We heard that from the

Minister of Health in 2005. That's the position today after they have actually

shut down long-term care beds. Now there is a deficit of beds, a number of beds

reduced in the capital region in terms of long-term care beds. This minister

says no, they're not qualified. They're not qualified? Why not?

Hon. J. Les: As I have already tried to explain, we're

using the Canada–B.C. infrastructure program guidelines, which never have

provided for funding of those kinds of facilities.

My colleagues the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services and the Minister of Health…. Those kinds of ministries have

traditionally had funding within them for that kind of housing.

J. Kwan: Well, except that this government and this

Minister of Health have actually failed to deliver on the beds, and that's the

reality.

The Chair: Member, move on. Member, take your seat, please.

Take your seat. Member, I'm going to caution you to move on. Get off this

subject and move on to vote 34(S-2).

J. Kwan: I am sure, Mr. Chair, that we want to move off

this subject, because it is embarrassing for this government. Make no mistake

about that.

Well, okay, long-term care beds do not qualify — don't qualify in

the Minister of Health's budget, don't qualify anywhere in this government's

budget. There's the delivery of long-term care beds, of 5,000 new beds for 2008

— zero promise.

Now let me ask this question: are private sector companies

eligible to apply for the $66 million slush fund?

[1455]

Hon. J. Les: No.

J. Kwan: Are non-profits eligible to apply?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, up to a maximum of a $100,000 grant.

J. Kwan: Does the $100,000 maximum apply for just

non-profits or for other sectors too?

Hon. J. Les: Non-profit only.

J. Kwan: Is there a ceiling that applies for municipalities

for their projects?

Hon. J. Les: The ceiling for municipally sponsored grant

applications is $2 million, unless an exemption is sought and granted from

Treasury Board.

J. Kwan: What kind of exemption?

Hon. J. Les: An applicant could apply for an exemption for

a variety of reasons, but I'll give one example. Where there is a particularly

significant economic benefit that would ensue from a project, Treasury Board may

well — although not necessarily — consider a lifting of the cap of $2 million.

J. Kwan: Who could apply for this exemption?

Hon. J. Les: The applicant.

J. Kwan: Is it all categories of applicants?

Hon. J. Les: The applications can only be made for those

qualifying for the $2 million level of grant, not for the $100,000 level of

grant.

J. Kwan: The two categories identified that could apply for

the $66 million pre-election slush fund are non-profits and municipalities. Are

there others?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Chairman, the member refers to "slush

fund." I wonder where in the documents she finds that kind of reference.

J. Kwan: Well, I'll tell you. Everybody understands that's

exactly what this $66 million is in this supplementary estimates No. 10 under

this minister's title — $66 million of pre-election moneys that the government

can actually hand out less than 30 days before the election, chosen by

politicians only behind closed doors in terms of what projects will get what

grants.

My question to the minister is: are there other categories of

applicants for this $66 million?

Hon. J. Les: None other than those that I've described.

[1500]

J. Kwan: What portion, if any, of this money is targeted

towards supporting the aboriginal community or depressed communities? What this

minister and this government used to call the heartlands we now see in this

budget has completely dropped off the face of the map. Some MLAs would actually

admit that they don't want to use the word "heartlands" anymore. Those would be

some of the brave ones, who occasionally actually voted against this government.

Hon. J. Les: Historically, it's interesting to note that

the distribution of funding under the Canada–B.C. infrastructure program has

actually been in the majority weighted towards the heartlands — 54 percent

versus 46 percent to urban British Columbia. When it comes to aboriginal

communities, the federal government sponsors a number of programs specific to

aboriginal communities — particularly in housing, for example — but certainly we

are always open to those applications that

[ Page 12245 ]

involve partnerships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.

J. Kwan: What work has been done to engage and communicate

with the aboriginal community with respect to the availability of this $66

million for potential capital projects, less than three months before the

election? Has any work been done to target the aboriginal community?

Hon. J. Les: I've already canvassed that with the member.

We are dealing with applications that have been received over time under the

Canada–B.C. infrastructure program.

J. Kwan: Sorry. No, actually, the minister didn't answer my

question. It's the first time I asked about aboriginal communities. The question

was quite simple: whether or not the minister has actually engaged in

consultation and communications with the aboriginal community about this $66

million pre-election access for capital projects. It's a simple question.

Hon. J. Les: If there are any applications currently

existing that involve, in whole or in part, aboriginal community applicants,

they will be considered along with all the rest of the applications.

J. Kwan: Then the answer, from this minister's previous

answers, is no. They have done no consultation. Has the minister done any

consultation at all with anyone on the $66 million pre-election spending spree?

Hon. J. Les: I'll try this again. We are dealing with

applications that had been on the books, which have continued to come in over

time. We're dealing with those applications. We're in the fortunate position

that we have some surplus money that we can apply to these important community

projects. I know that communities around the province are going to be delighted

to receive these funds.

Frankly, I'm surprised that the member opposite seems to be very

negative about this program. I'm sure she will recall, from the days when she

was Municipal Affairs minister, that these programs are vital to the communities

around British Columbia. They continue to be very well received today. I think

this is great news, actually, for British Columbia communities. I anticipate

that the UBCM, for example, which has already pronounced favourably on this,

will be very supportive as well.

J. Kwan: I stated very clearly yesterday when we started to

debate this $66 million that the issue here…. This is about the process the

government is engaged in. It's not about the amount of money that the

communities need. It's about the secrecy behind this and the lack of information

around it.

[1505]

Of course, one might note the timing around it as well. It's 66

million bucks, less than three months before the election — moneys that don't go

into the regular municipal infrastructure program, which has a well-established

process, or the Canada infrastructure program but into this ministry under a

different process. Only provincial government ministers will actually have a

final say in project approval. Unlike the other initiatives, this one is all

about politics. That's what I object to, Mr. Chair.

Well, let me ask the minister this question. What we know is that

there's been no consultation with anyone. There's no talking to the aboriginal

community. The government is just going to make decisions. Will the minister go

on record and say that all deliberations, procedures and decisions surrounding

the allocation of the $66 million will be published and open to the public for

scrutiny?

Hon. J. Les: Again, Mr. Chair, I point out that we are

using the same evaluation processes that have been in place for some time under

the Canada–B.C. infrastructure program. I'm happy to make available to the

member any information that is available under freedom of information.

I want to point out this as well. The member continues to wonder

about the lack of federal involvement. I should point out to her…. I had hoped

that I wouldn't need to point this out, but this is money that is solely

provincial money. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise anyone that we are not asking

the federal government to come on board to help us do the evaluations. It would

seem rather strange to ask the federal government to help us adjudicate projects

which are being solely funded by the provincial government and municipalities.

Does it really not follow to the member that we don't have federal government

involvement in this?

Introductions by Members

R. Stewart: Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me an

interruption.

It's my pleasure today to introduce 47 French grade 5 students and

six adults, led by their teachers Katherine Copley and Teresa Mazzuca. These

guests are from Our Lady of Fatima Elementary School in Coquitlam.

[The member

spoke French.]

It's particularly my

pleasure, as I'm a proud graduate of Our Lady of Fatima. Would the House please

make them welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan: The minister likes to say: "Oh well, there are no

federal moneys here. Why should we consult them?" Well, there are municipal

dollars here. Why aren't they at the table for decision-making?

Hon. J. Les: Of course, each applicant is part of the

process. We are in constant consultation with each applicant….

[ Page 12246 ]

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, through the Chair, please.

Hon. J. Les: We are in constant consultation with each of

the applicants to make sure that their applications are as complete as possible.

Again, that has been an ongoing process for many, many years to make sure the

applications, as they come in, are as complete as possible so that they can be

properly evaluated.

J. Kwan: That doesn't answer my question, and that has

nothing to do with decision-making. Municipal dollars are going in. Like the

infrastructure programs where partners are putting in dollars towards these

initiatives, they actually get a seat around the table for decision-making.

Not so. Not this political slush fund. That's the real reason

behind it — because it's all about this government's politics. Nothing else.

That's the real answer.

On page 5 of the service plan it states that the ministry is

"working with investors to facilitate economic development such as a fast-track

process for key projects." Could the minister please provide me with examples of

what some of these fast-track key projects are?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Chair, that line of questioning is

completely irrelevant to the subject matter today.

[1510]

J. Kwan: It is absolutely relevant, because it's the $66

million going into the slush fund under the minister, under the headline in this

minister's service plan that says: "Enhancing Economic Development Throughout

B.C." That's what the money's earmarked for — the 66 million bucks. What

fast-track projects are we talking about? What is the time line for these

fast-track projects to get access to the $66 million pre-election slush fund?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Chairman, the member knows that she's

irrelevant, and she knows it well. We followed this line of questioning last

year in estimates. She knows, for example, about projects like Mount Mackenzie

in Revelstoke, which is part of the fast-track process. That has absolutely

nothing to do with this program, and the member knows it.

J. Kwan: Well, Mr. Chair, I know that this minister would

love for the NDP to be irrelevant. Sorry, not so. Have you taken a look at the

polls lately? Not so. We are asking….

Interjection.

J. Kwan: It is this minister who attacked me personally,

Mr. Chair. If he can dish it, he can accept it.

Mr. Chair, let me tell you: the minister knows very well what I'm

talking about. It's under his very own service plan. Here we are talking about

the supplementary estimates that allow for another $66 million to go into some

sort of economic development plan that's outlined in this minister's very own

service plan. But he doesn't want to answer questions about fast-track projects.

He doesn't want to talk about time lines. Why? Because goodness forbid, we might

actually uncover some political agenda that this government could be caught on.

"Better not say anything and just insult the opposition." That's the level of

arrogance and the approach that this government has taken throughout the last

four years.

Well, let me tell you, Mr. Chair: that ain't going to get you

anywhere. It certainly goes contrary to the concept of accountability, openness

and transparency.

The minister said earlier, when I asked about information —

whether or not he would actually release information around the procedure, the

process, for the approval of these projects…. The minister says: "Sure, we're

open and accountable — if you can get the information under FOI." That's what

the minister says.

Well, we know that under FOI we can't access information on

another area of spending in this minister's supplemental estimates. That's the

Olympics secretariat, which my colleague canvassed earlier. You can't even FOI

that information. That falls within supplementary estimates No. 10.Any other

information that the public will try to get, they will have to FOI it. Even then

they may or may not get it.

That's the truth behind this government's approach to

transparency, openness and accountability. How about that? Well, taxpayers will

judge it on May 17.

I'd like to ask the minister a question. Will any of this $66

million for economic development throughout the province go towards resort

development?

Hon. J. Les: I've already pointed out that applicants for

the funding would have to be a non-profit with a cap of $100,000 or a community

— a municipality or a regional district — with a cap of $2 million.

J. Kwan: Can there be joint initiatives between a

municipality and a non-profit?

[1515]

Hon. J. Les: I think, in theory at least, the answer to

that question would be yes. We always encourage partnerships. Sometimes you can

achieve through partnerships what you can't achieve by a single applicant acting

alone.

J. Kwan: Is it the case that a private company could get

access to these dollars if it joins up with a non-profit or a municipality and

has the municipality or non-profit make the application — but ultimately, it's

actually a private business proposal?

Hon. J. Les: The answer is absolutely not.

J. Kwan: So the private sector, for example, could be

engaged in a ski resort development and engages, potentially, in a partnership

with, perhaps, the local

[ Page 12247 ]

government. The local government makes application, but ultimately it's a

private development for the ski resort, for the private business, and that's

completely legitimate — to access this $66 million pre-election slush fund.

That's what I heard the minister say as one example. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Les: This is a program, as was the Canada–B.C.

Infrastructure program before it, that is driven by municipal applicants to the

largest degree, with the exception of the non-profit grants. Our matching

funding matches municipal contributions. This is not part of a Moe Sihota fund

for developing Mount Washington.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: You can laugh. Wait until you look at your resort

development piece — to that minister, the newly minted Minister for Resort

Development. Take a look.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. Order, please. Let's get back to

the debate.

J. Kwan: Yeah, so be aware. Be aware. A private sector,

though, can access this — by the minister's own admission — through a non-profit

or through a municipality. There's nothing that precludes that. Are there any

applications that the government is evaluating right now that actually have such

a joint partnership — of those kinds of joint partnership opportunities?

Hon. J. Les: No, Mr. Chairman.

J. Kwan: Can an organization make more than one

application?

Hon. J. Les: Yes.

J. Kwan: Will the government be doing any regional analysis

on the approved projects?

Hon. J. Les: Fair and equitable distribution of these grant

moneys has always been a feature of this program.

J. Kwan: What would be deemed to be fair and equitable

across the regions?

Hon. J. Les: I've already indicated that the track record

so far indicates that just over half of the projects have gone to communities in

the heartlands, and the other 46 percent or so have gone to urban communities

across British Columbia.

[1520]

J. Kwan: What's the expected turnaround time for the

government to take a new application to come in, to evaluate it and to make a

decision? Given that there's actually less than three months until the election

and these projects have to be announced before the election is called, time is

of the essence here, I suppose.

Hon. J. Les: We always try to achieve a rapid turnaround

rate, but as the member will recognize, I think, there are various levels of

completeness in these applications as they come in. Some of them come in almost

complete, to the point where we can do the evaluation. Others need a lot of

work. Others need a lot of additional information, so the turnaround times vary

widely. We do try to do our part within my ministry to make sure we turn them

around as quickly as we can.

J. Kwan: How many FTEs are currently responsible for

evaluating the first round of evaluation of these projects before it gets up to

the political masters for final decision?

Hon. J. Les: Nine.

J. Kwan: Are the additional five FTEs due to the $66

million additional funds, or has that always been in place? That's the nine FTEs

that were formerly in place to evaluate $18 million. You now have $66 million

you have to turn around in less than three months. Are the same nine staff that

have been working on it when formerly in the '04-05 budget that was $18 million,

that's now increased with an additional $66 million…? No additional new staff?

Hon. J. Les: No new staff.

J. Kwan: Okay. Formerly, in '04-05, $18 million for the

ministry to evaluate these projects. Nine staff. Additional $66 million now. No

new staff. Interesting.

Who should one contact from the community if they want to get in

to access and make application to this new $66 million pre-election slush fund?

Who should they contact in the ministry?

Hon. J. Les: Municipalities, I think, know this well: they

would contact the infrastructure development branch within my ministry.

J. Kwan: Some of the municipalities might know it well, but

you know what? The non-profits that are eligible for $100,000 may not.

Information to the public would be useful, given that this government and this

minister have done no consultation whatsoever to let people know that the $66

million exists. They've done no outreach whatsoever, especially to communities

that may be struggling — the aboriginal community, for example.

Information would be useful, actually, for the organizations and

the public. Is there no contact name within the ministry that one should try and

touch base with? Should someone just phone Enquiry B.C. and ask for the

ministry? Then, I guess, they'd supposedly be transferred throughout to

different people to try and

[ Page 12248 ]

get some basic information in order to make application.

Hon. J. Les: As I've already indicated, there's a specific

branch within my ministry to which people can apply, but if the member wants a

more specific name, my Assistant Deputy Minister Doug Caul would be happy to

field the calls personally.

J. Kwan: Okay. Thanks, Doug. I appreciate that.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: The other Doug. Okay. Thanks, the other Doug.

You're on the hook. That's fine, actually. That wasn't a trick question. It's

just so the public knows who to try and get information from, given that there's

such a tight time line, in my view. If a project is to be evaluated, one needs

to get the information in and make sure the information is complete and is the

kind of information the ministry is looking for.

[1525]

A lot of times what makes grant applications successful, having

written many of them before in my life before being in this chamber, is getting

the right information and getting it to the right person in the right time

frame. It is about that — very much so.

I suppose it's good news to the community — that right time frame.

It is pre-election time. The floodgates are open. There's $66 million of slush

pre-election funds in this ministry. Come and get it. So I'm going to spread

that word out there to community groups and others to make sure they know and

are aware of it. I would expect that there'll be a lot of announcements just

before the election, because the timing is right. The government wants to do

exactly that — make the public forget the pain and suffering in the last four

years and only remember good memories of the government somehow really caring

for them three months before the election.

Vote 34(S-2) approved.

Hon. J. Les: I move that the committee rise and report the

resolutions.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply reported resolutions.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the report of the resolutions

from the Committee of Supply of this day be now received, taken as read and

agreed to.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that there be granted from and out

of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $134,900,000. This sum is in

addition to that authorized to be paid under

section 1 of the Supply Act,

2004-2005, and is granted by Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and

expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March

31, 2005.

Motion approved.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2004-2005

(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 10)

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary Estimates

No. 10).

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: The use of supplementary estimates is

consistent with the spirit of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation of government

programs for the 2004-05 fiscal year as outlined in the supplementary estimates

No. 10 tabled earlier.

[1530]

This bill will provide the additional funds required to defray the

charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year

ending March 31, 2005.

In accordance with established practice, the government seeks to

move this bill through all stages this day.

Mr. Speaker: The bill will be permitted to advance through

all stages in one sitting.

Bill 17 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to

second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2004-2005

(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 10)

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 17 be now read a second

time.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be now referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[ Page 12249 ]

Bill 17, Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary Estimates No. 10),

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

consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

SUPPLY ACT, 2004-2005

(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 10)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 17; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The committee met at 3:32 p.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:33 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17, Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary Estimates No. 10),

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

Supplementary Estimates

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: supplementary estimates (No. 11) for the fiscal year ending March

31, 2005.

Hon. C. Hansen moved that the said message and the estimates

accompanying the same be referred to Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply

The House in Committee of Supply; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 3:34 p.m.

[1535]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 27(S): ministry operations, $10,000,000.

Hon. S. Brice: Before we begin a detailed discussion of

this motion, I'd like to take a moment to introduce some of the members of my

ministry executive who are joining me today: Robin Ciceri, deputy minister;

Andrew Wharton, assistant deputy minister of the policy and research division;

and behind me, Sharon Moysey, assistant deputy minister of management services

division and executive financial officer. These members of the executive are

just a few of the hundreds of staff at the Ministry of Human Resources that I'd

like to thank for their ongoing commitment and professionalism.

As I've said, we're here today to request supplementary estimates

in the amount of $10 million. We request these funds for ministry program

operating costs resulting from government's recent $70 monthly rate increase for

persons with disabilities that came into effect January 1, 2005. This is the

largest rate increase in the history of B.C. With this $70 rate increase British

Columbians with disabilities now receive $856 per month, the second-highest rate

in Canada.

The full cost of the PWD rate increase for fiscal '04-05 was $18.5

million to cover additional costs for income assistance payments made for

December, January, February and March. Of that $18.5 million, $8.5 million is

being funded from within the ministry's existing budget due to savings from a

declining caseload of clients who are capable of working.

We had originally planned for a more modest disability rate

increase. However, because of the excellent strength in the economy and sound

fiscal management, we were able to provide a much larger increase and provide it

much sooner.

Mr. Chair, let me provide some background on this rate increase as

it ties into government's goal for the decade ahead of building the best system

of support in Canada for persons with disabilities. Increasing disability rates

by $70 a month is just one of the many supports that we have in place to ensure

people with disabilities have every opportunity to achieve their potential and

participate as fully as possible in their communities. With that, I stand

available to answer any questions.

J. Brar: The opposition supports a rate increase for people

with disabilities, but we do have some questions. This government subjected

people with disabilities to a wasteful and intimidating review that caused

enormous hardship and anxiety for thousands of British Columbians and found a

vast majority of people did indeed have a disability.

[1540]

Just a year ago the auditor general released a report that

concluded that not only did this B.C. Liberal government put British Columbians

with disabilities through needless anxiety, but they based their attack

[ Page 12250 ]

on false ideological assumptions and ended up costing taxpayers $5 million to

remove only 46 recipients from assistance.

My first question is: was the government informed by the auditor

general's report in its decision to increase disability rates?

Hon. S. Brice: The review that took place has ensured that

everybody eligible for PWD in the province is actually receiving it. In fact, we

have approximately 10,000 additional persons currently receiving PWD assistance.

J. Brar: My question is simple, and I'm going to repeat the

question. I need to get the answer. Was the government informed by the auditor

general's report in its decision to increase the disability rates?

Hon. S. Brice: My apology to the member for perhaps not

picking up on the thrust of his original question.

No, the auditor general's report did not make any reference to

rates. The rate had been considered for some time by previous ministers in my

role. It was the magnitude of the rate that we were able to consider, which came

as a result of a number of factors, including the good economy.

J. Brar: This government was roundly criticized for this

mean-spirited and ideological attack. If the government is now trying to make up

for its actions, the public and, more importantly, the people with disabilities

will have to decide if the fact that the B.C. Liberals have waited until mere

months before the election to do so is credible or not.

How many people in B.C. will benefit from this rate hike?

Hon. S. Brice: In '05-06 approximately 57,050 PWD British

Columbians and 900 seniors will benefit because of the increase.

J. Brar: If I understand the breakdown of this group

correctly…. How many individuals are persons with disabilities and persons with

multiple barriers?

Hon. S. Brice: All of the individuals who will be in

receipt of the increase we are here asking for funding for will be individuals

who have the designation "person with a disability."

J. Kwan: The people who receive this additional funding are

all individuals who are eligible under the income assistance eligibility rules

for disability. Does that mean that each individual, even if you're a couple,

would actually receive the additional dollars? Is it per person as long as you

are eligible under the disability eligibility rules?

Hon. S. Brice: Under the disability regulation and under

the dollars we are requesting increased funding for, it's a $70 increase for

each person. If there are two individuals in a family with a designated

disability, there will be $140.

[1545]

J. Kwan: That's what I want to clarify, because there is

confusion in the community about this. Some have been told that if you're in a

couple situation, even if both individuals have been designated as persons with

disabilities under the criteria, they were made to believe that both of them

would not get the increase. The clarification from the minister now is that each

individual who qualifies for disability under the eligibility rules, whether in

a couple situation or a family situation, will receive the additional $70.

In other words, whether you're a couple or even if you're a

family…. It could be that you could have two adults and children who are

disabled. Under that scenario, three individuals, if they meet the criteria for

disability under the Income Assistance Act, would qualify for an additional $70

each. Am I correct?

Hon. S. Brice: Any adult individual who qualifies as a

person with a disability is eligible for a $70 increase. If both individuals in

the family have a PWD designation, they will get the $140. If it's a family

where there are two disabled adults and a disabled child, the funding for the

child comes through the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The

Ministry of Human Resources has clients who are adult persons with disabilities.

J. Brar: Do the people on disability living in group homes

qualify for this?

Hon. S. Brice: The issue raised about individuals with PWD

living in group homes is something that has resulted in some discussions taking

place at the staff level, because some are on PWD and some are on comforts

allowance. My colleague, the Minister of Children and Family Development, and

staff, along with the staff of the Ministry of Human Resources, are looking to

find the best way to ensure that people are treated fairly and equally.

J. Brar: Just a minute ago, the minister said that

everybody who is on disability is going to receive the rate increase. Is it fair

to assume that people living in group homes are going to get $70 more under this

new decision of the government?

Hon. S. Brice: Every individual on PWD with the Ministry of

Human Resources is getting the $70 increase.

J. Brar: Including people living in group homes? That's the

question.

[1550]

Hon. S. Brice: Every person receiving disability assistance

is receiving the $70. Yes.

[ Page 12251 ]

J. Brar: The question is pretty simple. The minister made it

very clear that every person with a disability is going to get a $70 rate

increase. My question is very simple. Are people on disability who are living in

group homes going to get it? Do they qualify for this $70 hike or not? That's

the simple question I'm asking.

[H. Long in the chair.]

Hon. S. Brice: Yes. As I stated, anyone receiving

disability assistance is receiving the $70.

J. Brar: I did receive some information that people living

in group homes have not received the cheques. Can the minister explain why they

did not receive the cheques? Why is there a delay? What is the difference?

Hon. S. Brice: Outside of the 57,050 PWD clients I was

referring to just moments ago, there is a different category of clients, those

who receive a comforts allowance. They are not PWDs. That is the category for

which I indicated that the staff from the Ministry of Human Resources and from

the Ministry of Children and Family Development are in discussions about how to

ensure that this particular group of people is treated fairly and equitably.

J. Brar: I am a bit confused about all this. I'm talking

about the people with disability. I understand that the individual people are

going to get a $70 hike under the new policy. What I'm not getting the answer to

is on people with disability living in group homes. My assumption is that they

are also going to get $70 in additional support. That's what the minister said

just minutes ago.

My question is this. I did receive information from the people.

The people living in group homes have not received the cheques for the $70

additional hike. Can the minister explain why it is so?

Hon. S. Brice: All persons with PWD are receiving a $70

increase. There is the base of it. That's why we're here today seeking the

additional $10 million. In the work of the ministry, as well, there's a group of

people who receive a comforts allowance — individuals where we pay a per-diem

cost and the individual receives a comforts allowance of $85 at this time. They

are not designated PWD, and they are not captured by this $70 increase.

[1555]

J. Brar: Is it fair to assume, to make it pretty simple,

that people with disabilities living in group homes are not eligible for this

$70 hike?

Hon. S. Brice: There are some clients to whom MCFD has

passed along their $70 increase: people who receive disability assistance. There

are other individuals where government pays a comforts allowance and where they

are not designated PWD. They are, therefore, not captured by this particular

designation.

J. Brar: So I'm right in saying that the people with

disabilities living in group homes are not eligible for the $70 hike. Yes or no?

Hon. S. Brice: Yes, they are — if they're our clients and

are designated PWD.

J. Brar: Are they receiving the $70 hike. Yes or no?

Hon. S. Brice: Yes. If they're our clients and are in a

group home and are designated PWD, they are receiving the $70.

J. MacPhail: Is that a hypothetical, or are there actually

clients as the minister describes — persons with disabilities in a group home

receiving the $70 hike now?

Hon. S. Brice: Yes.

J. Brar: I recently heard about cuts to services for

persons with disabilities. Can the minister please tell me about the recent

service delivery changes in the McBride office?

Hon. S. Brice: Nothing has been brought to my attention

specifically about that particular office. I would be glad to look into it and

get the information back to the member.

J. Brar: Here is a brief

summary from the e-mail I

received. This is from the McBride service centre, which is funded by the

Ministry of Human Resources of British Columbia. They had this service centre,

but now they got the cut. The only person working in that office now is an

administrative assistant. The social workers have been moved to Prince George.

People with disabilities in that centre can only see the

administrative assistant and explain their issues to him or her. They cannot

meet with the social worker. Can you explain why?

Hon. S. Brice: As I said, I would be pleased to get a

fulsome answer and get it to the member. I do know that we engage in a pretty

intensive way in each community to try and make service delivery meet the needs

of the community. In that particular community's situation, I would like to have

the opportunity to get the material for the member.

[1600]

J. Brar: I understand that, but can the minister please

indicate if that's the case? Is there any movement going on within the ministry

to shift social workers from some centres to other centres? What are the centres

that are going to lose social workers?

Hon. S. Brice: I'm just quickly reading through e-mails

here to determine exactly what the situation is there. Apparently, we are

currently seeking someone in

[ Page 12252 ]

that geographic area who could perform the job duties, and the staff are

attempting to get that position filled.

J. Brar: Is it fair to assume that the social worker at the

McBride office has not been cut?

Hon. S. Brice: No, the position has not been cut. We're

just having some difficulty finding an individual who is able to perform that

task.

J. Brar: Is it also fair to assume there is no other office

in the province where any social worker position has been cut?

Hon. S. Brice: In a dynamic staff of more than 2,000

employees, there are always changes. There are certainly no policy changes

within this ministry to see any reduction in social work positions.

J. Brar: The November announcement for this change was for

$55 million. The minister is asking $10 million. Where is the balance going to

come from?

Hon. S. Brice: For the four months of January, February,

March and April, as I indicated, that cost to the '04-05 budget is $18.5

million, $8.5 million of which we could assume within the ministry. That's why

we're asking for the $10 million addition into the supplementary estimates. On

the go-forward year, this ministry has had a lift that will accommodate the $55

million annualized costs.

[1605]

J. Brar: I have this fact sheet, which is prepared by the

government of British Columbia and which lists out all the different categories

of people who are eligible for the $70. In that list, we have single persons, of

course, getting $70, and we have one-parent families with two children getting

$70 as well. A single gets $70, and a parent with two kids gets $70 as well. Is

there any rationale to keep the same amount for both the individual and the

family?

Hon. S. Brice: In recognizing that the $70 per PWD, of

course, attaches itself to the parents in the family, then when you factor in

the fact that the family is on assistance and eligible for additional funding….

A single person, for instance, now gets $856, but one parent with two children

would get $1,235, so the income from the ministry, certainly, is considerably

more for a one-parent family with two children.

J. Brar: As far as the $70 increase is concerned, the

parents of two children are not a factor. Is it fair to assume that way?

Hon. S. Brice: The parents are the clients of the Ministry

of Human Resources, and any adult with a PWD designation is receiving a $70

increase.

J. MacPhail: We now have questions for the Solicitor

General, Mr. Chair.

Vote 27(

S) approved.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY

AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

On vote 31(S): ministry operations, $3,400,000.

J. Brar: Just to clarify, in the budget and fiscal plan,

this supplementary $3.4 million is described as being for priority police

equipment. In the wording of the current bill, this funding is described as

being a part of a provincial commitment to adding 215 RCMP officers into B.C.

communities.

Can the minister confirm that this money is intended as a one-time

grant for capital expenditure only?

Hon. R. Coleman: The funding for the provincial force of

$30 million, $30 million and $30 million in the next three fiscal years for the

215 officers is in addition to this. This was an opportunity we saw where we

could advance some capital costs and have some savings in our out years with

regard to some equipment.

One is the Kelowna helicopter, which is a helicopter that is about

25 or 30 years old. Frankly, it is not as bad as the Sea Kings, but it is

getting quite elderly, and our long-term maintenance costs are going to exceed

the value of the unit. We have the opportunity in this year to move some capital

forward to purchase the helicopter. That's $2 million of the total dollars.

[1610]

In addition to that, we had equipment that we wanted to deal with,

from the standpoint of some Zodiacs — boats we need for some of our internal

waters with regard to some of our enforcement. We are purchasing two five-metre

Zodiacs and three six-metre aluminum-hull inflatables at a cost of $500,000.

It's capital that we identified, and we got that in addition to the police

funding. The IT equipment that is identified, the last $900,000, is to upgrade

radios for some of our police officers.

J. Brar: Is it fair to assume that the list of equipment

indicated by the minister is final — and that includes everything listed on this

list of equipment?

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Chair, I had activity beside me. Could

you just repeat that question?

J. Brar: The minister indicated a few things as to the

equipment, one being the helicopter in Kelowna, and a few other things. My

question is: is that all the equipment in this list, or are there more things in

the list under the $3.4 million?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, that's all that's listed in this

estimate. This is an opportunity to advance some capi-

[ Page 12253 ]

tal. Obviously, we've been upgrading our small capital starting back in about

2002, and this is part of the plan. In the provincial policing budget we'll end

up upgrading our cars, as they become older, and things like radios, computers

and what have you. We have the process with regards to PRIME going on. This

money is identified for these purposes, and we would want to make the purchases

before the end of the fiscal year.

J. Brar: Certainly the minister must have done some sort of

analysis to make sure what the priorities are, particularly for this $3.4

million additional funding. How has the priority for this equipment been

determined?

Hon. R. Coleman: The RCMP does that. They actually identify

their priorities with regards to funding. We started a process a little over two

years ago about building a five-year plan for policing and what funding would be

required. As we came through that, we did some incremental funding with regards

to some other things, and they identified small capital as one of the things

they wanted to advance. The money is available to do some advancement of small

capital, so we brought it forward to Treasury Board. The rest of our small

capital is now in pretty good shape because we have been incrementally doing

that.

Of course, the police budget now…. What happens with the global

dollars is that they actually apply those dollars. We send the RCMP the money;

they run the provincial force.

J. Brar: So the answer is that the minister got the list

from the RCMP, and that's the list the minister is going to follow?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's a process involved where they send

us a list of priorities every year. Then throughout the year they will come back

to us with additional priorities so that we can track the budgets.

Police funding is a bit of an odd thing with regards to the fiscal

years on funding. We have a federal-provincial contract where we pay 70-cent

dollars and the federal government pays 30-cent dollars on things like this and

on all the personnel. Yet we set our numbers basically in August with the

provincial force because we have to match into their fiscal year. Yet we don't

do our budgeting until this sort of cycle. There is a bit of overlap there.

We have this one here, and what we've done is…. They brought us

their priorities, they identified these, and we felt we could add them into this

fiscal year, in addition to the funding we're putting in the next few years into

policing. Then we got commitment from the federal government to meet their 70-30

split.

[1615]

J. Brar: We do have what we call the integrated crime task

force. Is this task force going to get anything out of it?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know if any of the radio equipment

would necessarily go to that group. We funded the ramp-up of the gang task force

in this fiscal year. The outgoing funding covers it, for the long term, to be

able to have the task force operate.

They'll operate in a number of fashions. First of all, the police

will set up the integrated unit. They will work with the municipalities to

identify the officers that would come into it, including the communications.

They will then have different aspects of it. Some of them would be doing, let's

say, things like surveillance, so they may need radios. That equipment would be

supplied.

The one thing the RCMP have asked…. Although we talk about the

global size and the global dollars of the task force, they do not want us to

discuss publicly the actual makeup and positions within the task force. They

feel that they need to have some confidentiality with regards to that, because

it is a pretty significant investigation, with a lot of sensitivities around it.

They don't have a problem with us saying there's a task force. The dollars we're

spending on it…. There is a public communications office that's been identified

and made public with regards to that. They have some liaisons in the

Indo-Canadian community in particular with regards to this.

The ramp-up has been within this year's budget, and we're okay for

the outgoing years.

J. Brar: Just for clarification, I understand that much of

the work in this case is done by the RCMP, including what kind of equipment and

what kind of priorities and all that.

Are there any kind of criteria we look into where the funding must

be spread provincially or where each region gets it equally or those kinds of

things? Do we keep those things as factors, or is it not part of that at this

stage?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll try and answer the question this way.

The RCMP is our provincial force. They have the provincial responsibility for

policing all communities that are under 5,000 and regional districts. They also

have a responsibility on a number of sophisticated types of policing operations

— DNA databank, DNA work, a lot of forensic ident and laboratory stuff, things

like integrated units, where we put together the integrated homicide unit or the

task force or the missing women case, and those sort of things. They also supply

overarching support and expertise in major investigations to other communities.

The way policing is in B.C. is that the provincial force is a

portion of the RCMP members. The rest of it is an overarching support to all

communities. Then each community has a detachment commander or chief of police

who sets local priorities for policing and establishes their budget with their

local department. All but 11 communities in B.C. are policed by the RCMP.

Although we have responsibility for their contracts, we're not directing

policing in those communities.

What we have done over the last three years, though, is gone to a

more regional model. We now

[ Page 12254 ]

have a regional command structure. For instance, the southwest district would

be commanded out of Kelowna and would take care of everything to the Alberta

border, the Okanagan and up into the Thompson-Cariboo area. That group would

then have centralized communication, which would dispatch from that location.

They'd also have an integrated relationship where they will share resources in

crime cross-border, so we get a better impact from the use of our officers.

I don't know if that answers the question for the member. It's a

pretty integrated relationship now between each level. The provincial priorities

are set by the provincial force, but it's not uncommon for those resources that

we give to the provincial force to be also shared with communities that are

paying for policing.

Vote 31(

S) approved.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS AND

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Vote 34(S-3): ministry operations, $14,000,000 — approved.

The Chair: We will take a short recess while we wait for

the minister and staff.

The committee recessed from 4:20 p.m. to 4:22 p.m.

[H. Long in the chair.]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

On vote 35(S): ministry operations, $28,600,000.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, $25 million of this supplementary

estimate is listed under "Sound governance" under "Operating expense," "Core

business," of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. In the budget

documents of '05-06, at page 31, there is $21 million estimated for

investigation and remediation of contaminated sites. Is there any relationship

between this $25 million and the $21 million allocated in the '05-06 budget?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. There is a

relationship between the two figures and the two budgets. In both cases the

dollars that she mentioned are related to remediation of contaminated sites.

J. MacPhail: So the $25 million in this budget is for

contaminated site remediation. How much of the $25 million allocated to sound

governance that we're spending today has already been spent?

[1625]

Hon. G. Abbott: None of the amount in the supplemental

estimates has been spent. We are booking the liability associated with the

sites.

J. MacPhail: What processes are in place to distribute this

$25 million?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. In

terms of the breakdown, $10 million is for the completion of the Pacific Place

remediation project. That's the first $10 million. Pacific Place is not a new

one. This one has an interesting history, as I'm sure the member knows, going

back at least a couple of governments in British Columbia.

The Yankee Girl, while obviously not a new site…. We've known the

site was there, but there has been increasing interest and concern around the

Yankee Girl in very recent years, and $15 million is to remediate that site in

the months and years ahead.

J. MacPhail: The reason I'm asking this question is that

I'm wondering: is there a current list of high-risk contaminated sites that will

be addressed first? And are the two mentioned at the top of the high-risk

contaminated site list?

Hon. G. Abbott: Along with the Britannia site, these two

are at the top of the list.

J. MacPhail: Is there a current list? Where is it, and how

many sites are on it?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is a list of priority sites that have

been identified. That list is composed of 13, including the three I've

mentioned. I would be pleased to share it with the hon. member.

J. MacPhail: Yes, thank you. I'd appreciate that.

I was surprised to see that this money was allocated to the

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, and the notes for the supplemental

estimates say the $25 million is for the management, assessment and remediation

of contaminated sites on provincial land. Well, that responsibility lies, last

time I debated estimates, with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

Why is it being assigned to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management?

Hon. G. Abbott: The distinction for the member would be

this: Water, Land and Air Protection is the regulator in respect of these

issues. They also have leadership in respect of, typically, the smaller private

sites, gas stations and so on, that have had localized problems. When you get to

Crown lands, the responsibility rests with us.

In a case like Pacific Place, as part of an agreement going back

probably almost 20 years now — hard to imagine that, going back 20 years, and in

the case of Britannia, obviously, much longer — Sustainable Resource Management

is the landowner, and as a consequence, we carry the obligation to do the

remediation.

[1630]

J. MacPhail: My understanding is that the standards are set

in a regulation called the Contaminated

[ Page 12255 ]

Sites Regulation. Who has that authority? Which ministry has the

authority to change those standards?

Hon. G. Abbott: Water, Land and Air Protection has that

responsibility.

J. MacPhail: Will the list of 13 that the minister is going

to provide me…? The determination for proceeding on cleanup will rest with which

minister on the rest of that list?

Hon. G. Abbott: The responsibility for remediation of those

13 sites will rest with Sustainable Resource Management. We do, however, work in

collaboration with all of the regulators. That would include not only Water,

Land and Air Protection in the context of British Columbia but also, for

example, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who often have a considerable

interest and regulatory authority around these matters.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister consult with municipal

officials?

Hon. G. Abbott: We would where applicable.

J. MacPhail: What's the relationship between the minister's

responsibility and decision about cleaning up contaminated sites and the

aboriginal land claims office?

Hon. G. Abbott: While there may not be many, if any,

instances where first nation interests would be engaged in respect of these 13

sites, where those first nation interests were applicable, we would include a

consultation, or discussion, obviously, a collaboration, with TNO as part of

that.

J. MacPhail: When I was doing my preparation for this

supplementary estimate, I came across a Supreme Court of Canada decision of

January 21, 2005. It was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that ruled

that B.C. Hydro is responsible for the actions of its predecessor, B.C.

Electric, which contributed to the contamination of a Vancouver property.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was B.C. Hydro who would

be held responsible for cleaning up that site. That was its oral ruling. It

still has to issue its written reasons, but they made an oral ruling that B.C.

Hydro was responsible and that the polluter-pay principle applies.

Why is it that under this government we're using taxpayer dollars

to clean up high-risk contaminated sites?

[1635]

Hon. G. Abbott: That's a good question from the member. We

very much endorse the principle of polluter-pay. The challenge is that when a

site has at some point in the past defaulted to Crown, and where there no longer

exists a responsible entity that can help share in the cost of remediating the

site, that responsibility defers to Crown.

To give you a couple of examples. In the case of Britannia we have

the benefit of about $30 million that came in some agreement in the past from

the former owner. We're using that in part to deal with the Britannia

remediation. It certainly doesn't cover off the cost of Britannia, but it is

helpful.

When you get into more difficult areas like Yankee Girl, which was

mined and abandoned many, many decades ago…. On the edge of the river — and I

drove by it not too long ago at Ymir — you can see the remnants of Yankee Girl.

Those remnants are of concern particularly to Department of Fisheries and

Oceans. But the owners and developers of that site and the miners and so on are

long gone, and it is just to exercise or discharge our obligations responsibly

to get a cleanup. It clearly has defaulted entirely to us.

Generally speaking, the notion of polluter-pay is a good one and

one we embrace, but finding the heirs and successors to the owners of Yankee

Girl might be a difficult task.

J. MacPhail: Are there any sites on the list of the 13

high-risk contaminated sites where the government knows the owner but is

cleaning it up with taxpayer dollars instead?

Hon. G. Abbott: No.

J. MacPhail: There's a new definition of what a

contaminated site is. I understand what the responsibility is for a contaminated

site. There is a shift from conditional certificates of compliance, and now it's

a risk-based approach to site remediation. That change took place under this

government. What's been the impact of that shift?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so we don't have any confusion, the

issue the member is referring to is a WLAP–regulated issue, as opposed to

Sustainable Resource Management. We deal only with those sites, as I noted

earlier, that have either deferred to Crown or are with Crown for historical

reasons.

J. MacPhail: So this definition doesn't apply to Crown

land?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, it does.

J. MacPhail: Then I'm asking: what's been the difference?

What's been the effect in the shift from conditional certificate of compliance

to a risk-based approach to site remediation?

[1640]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm going to give the best answer I can

here. It's an interesting question. The applicability of the model is tentative

in respect of our sites. We have, generally speaking, historic sites that we are

dealing with. So we certainly agree with and embrace

[ Page 12256 ]

the new model. How it will play out in respect of remediation of a site like

Yankee Girl, which has been alongside the river for — I don't know — 80 or 90

years, something in that neighbourhood…. We're going to start the process of

designing how it will be remediated and the time frames and so on.

It gets difficult to translate. What makes perfect sense in the

context of a gas leak from a gas station over time to one of these sites is kind

of difficult. I don't want to diminish the importance of the question. It's just

difficult to translate it into how it will work exactly with respect to the

three very large and historic sites that we're dealing with.

J. MacPhail: Does the principle of polluter-pay continue to

be entrenched in provincial legislation?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

J. MacPhail: I just had our researchers look for the

contaminated sites on the website after the minister had said that there are 13

high-risk sites. There are only two listed on the website of the ministry —

Britannia and Pacific Place. Why? Why are there not 13 listed?

Hon. G. Abbott: A couple of points here. I mentioned these

were priority sites. These are ones that have been identified. I'm also advised

by staff that they are in the process of updating the site. More will appear.

Whether all 13 of these priority sites will appear as high-risk sites remains to

be seen.

Vote 35(

S) approved.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF WATER, LAND AND

AIR PROTECTION

Vote 38(S): ministry operations, $7,800,000 — approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that we rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:43 p.m.

[1645]

The House resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Committee of Supply reported resolutions.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

Hon. C. Hansen: Now, Mr. Speaker. I move the report of

resolutions from the Committee of Supply on March 2, 2005, be now received,

taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that there be granted from and out

of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $63.8 million. This sum is in

addition to that authorized to be paid under

section 1 of the Supply Act,

2004-2005, and is granted by Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and

expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March

31, 2005.

Motion approved.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2004-2005 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 11)

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 11).

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: The use of supplementary estimates is

consistent with the spirit of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation of government

programs for the 2004-05 fiscal year, as outlined in the supplementary estimates

(No. 11) tabled earlier. The bill will provide the additional funds required to

defray the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the

fiscal year ending March 31, 2005. In accordance with established practice, the

government seeks to move this bill through all stages this day.

Deputy Speaker: In keeping with the practice of this House

the bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Bill 18 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to

second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2004-2005 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 11)

Hon. C. Hansen: I move Bill 18 be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move the bill be referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[ Page 12257 ]

Bill 18, Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary Estimates No.

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

consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

SUPPLY ACT, 2004-2005 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 11)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 18; H. Long in

the chair.

The committee met at 4:49 p.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:49 p.m.

[1650]

The House resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 18, Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary Estimates No.

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

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY BASES,

2004-2005, AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ministerial Accountability Bases,

2004-2005, Amendment Act, 2005.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 19 be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: The Ministerial Accountability Bases,

2004-2005, Amendment Act, 2005, provides for an increase in the amount of

operating expenses for the various ministries for purposes of ministerial

accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. The

additional amount for each minister has been debated and passed by this

Legislature.

I move that the bill be put on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Hon. C. Hansen: I request a five-minute recess.

Deputy Speaker: The House will recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 4:52 p.m. to 4:53 p.m.

[H. Long in the chair.]

Hon. C. Hansen: I call Committee of the Whole for

consideration of Bill 21.

Committee of the Whole House

CROWN COUNSEL AGREEMENT

CONTINUATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 21; H. Long in the chair.

The committee met at 4:55 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. G. Bruce: I would just like to introduce my staff who

are with me: Rick Connolly, who is the deputy minister, and Annette Wall, who is

my assistant deputy minister.

J. MacPhail: We're about to debate Bill 21 clause by

clause, where the government has outlawed two arbitration decisions awarding

increased pay and benefits to the Crown counsel of the British Columbia

government. Yesterday the minister conceded this in public: that the government

had freely entered into the arbitration process; that the appointed arbitrator

concluded that prosecutors should be awarded a 13 percent increase retroactive

to April 2003; and that when the government fought this decision, a subsequent

arbitrator ruled that the government had acted in bad faith.

The minister admitted all that. If he wants the context, it was

The Bill Good Show for CKNW. But I'm sure he knows exactly when he

said all of that — conceded that. So that's the context in which I'll be

debating this legislation.

The government did agree to a process. The process called for

negotiations first. Then, if negotiations were to fail, arbitration was the

final decision-making process. The government was only able, under the

agreement, to reject the decision on a reasoned basis. However, when that was

tested at a second arbitration, the

[ Page 12258 ]

arbitrator found there was no reasoned basis for rejecting the first

arbitration.

In fact, here's what the minister did say yesterday when he

admitted that, regardless of the arbitration process, his B.C. Liberal

government had a fixed mandate of zero-zero-and-zero. I quote from the minister.

Yesterday he said: "From the word go, we have said what we were going to do."

That was his reference and description of the zero-zero-and-zero mandate.

No wonder the second arbitrator found that the government's

rejection of the first arbitration was, and I quote that arbitrator, "not

rational, legitimate or in good faith." That was an actual legal determination

by the arbitrator. He also went on to say that the government didn't have a

single rationale for rejection that was "reasoned."

Yesterday the minister basically gave a paraphrase of what he's

always done which is: "It's our way or the highway." No one in the profession

that's supposed to make decisions on a reasoned basis would accept that

arbitrary, dictatorial way, so the government does what it always does. It

brings in legislation — the hammer — to get its own way. It's going to be in

that context that I'll be debating this legislation clause by clause.

The definition of "Crown counsel agreement" under

section 1 reads

thus: "'Crown Counsel Agreement' means the agreement entered into under

section

4.1 of the Crown Counsel Act by the government and the BCCCA on January 5, 2001,

as extended until March 31, 2005 under

Article 3 of that agreement."

I looked up that section, and here's what 4.1(3) reads. It says:

"The employer and the BCCCA must bargain collectively in good faith and make

every reasonable effort to conclude agreements referred to in subsection (2)."

An arbitrator ruled that the government acted in bad faith. Why is

it that the government now refers to a piece of legislation? Why do they mock a

process that requires them to act in good faith in this legislation, where

they're enshrining bad-faith bargaining?

[1700]

Hon. G. Bruce: There was bargaining that was taking place

before the arbitration and then in the arbitration. It had always been the

position of government that this set of negotiations, like others throughout

government, would be covered by the mandate of zero-zero-and-zero.

J. MacPhail: This minister is particularly good at

asserting his point of view, despite what the law says and despite what those

who are to interpret the law say about him. Here he is. He stands up again and

says: "We never planned on doing anything but zero-zero-and-zero."

Then let me ask the minister this: how can anyone have faith in an

arbitration process where an arbitrator deliberately said that the government's

rejection of the original arbitration decision, called the Taylor decision, was

not reasoned, legitimate, rational or in good faith? That's a legal finding by

an arbitrator against this government.

The minister's response is to stand up and say: "Well, we never

intended to do anything in good faith. We said it was zero-zero-and-zero, so

tough tooties." Is that the minister's response to a legal finding in an

arbitration that his government acted in bad faith?

Hon. G. Bruce: It had been government's position. We

assumed that the arbitrator would take note, take into consideration the

zero-zero-zero mandate and the fact that it had been applied evenly across the

entire government sector throughout the province in all aspects.

J. MacPhail: But so what? The government went into an

arbitration process. Is the minister's definition of an arbitration process: "We

like it as long as we get our way"? Is that his definition of an arbitration

process? Are there other areas where the minister may feel jeopardized by his

definition of what arbitration is?

Hon. G. Bruce: As a government, we're clear, to begin with,

that we're working under a zero-zero-zero mandate. We've actually been able to

complete 81 agreements now. With the docks there were some challenges, but we

found our way home on that one.

[1705]

We made it clear in this particular instance that this group, as

well, would be covered under the mandate of zero-zero-zero. In an effort to be

fair and balanced to all of the members in the public sector, that's why we're

taking this action here now.

J. MacPhail: I understand that that's the government's

mantra. It's a mantra that doesn't make sense to anybody who's a fair and

reasonable person in this province.

Let me just review a little bit of history here, because this has

a long history that has many words behind it by the then Liberal opposition. The

current Attorney General has spoken much to the Crown counsel's work conditions

in this Legislature.

In 2001 Crown counsel was in negotiations with the then NDP

administration. The government of the day and the Crown Counsel Association set

up a good-faith bargaining process that was established in legislation in the

year 2001. At that time, the then Liberal opposition had all sorts of criticism

for the NDP government of the day about how they were treating Crown counsel so

badly. It was despicable — these hard-working people.

I'd love to read into the record the Hansard speeches that

I have right now of what the then Liberal opposition said, but I can just

summarize it by saying that the legislated process for the good-faith bargaining

between the government and the Crown counsel was established, and the then B.C.

Liberal opposition voted for it unanimously — unanimously. That's after taking a

whole bunch of shots at the previous government — a whole bunch of shots about

how miserly they were toward the Crown counsel of the day.

[ Page 12259 ]

An agreement was reached under the legislative process. The

contract was rolled over, and it terminated in April of this year.

Sorry. The contract wasn't rolled over. That's what the

government's doing today. The government and the Crown counsel then entered into

a bargaining process pursuant to the legislation that the then Liberal

opposition voted for unanimously.

There was an arbitration in the year 2004, the Colin Taylor

arbitration, pursuant to legislation. Here's what he determined: Crown counsel

in British Columbia have fallen behind Crown counsel in the three accepted

comparator jurisdictions of Alberta, the Department of Justice and Ontario. What

do we mean by accepted comparators? Well, the government went before Colin

Taylor and said: "Yes, we agree, Mr. Arbitrator, that there are three areas you

should examine to compare the wages and working conditions of the B.C. Crown

counsel, and we agree that those three areas are Ontario; Alberta; and the

federal ministry, the Department of Justice."

In fact, there was quite a bit of time spent on that at the

hearing, as both parties accepted those comparators. Mr. Taylor reiterated that

in his '04 arbitration. He determined that a market adjustment increase must

take place. A market adjustment — What does that mean? Well, when this

government gave huge, wonking increases to their deputy ministers, that's what

they called it — a market adjustment. That's what we have to do in order to

attract the best and the brightest — a market adjustment. It's a labour market

term.

Mr. Taylor awarded a market adjustment increase. He recommended a

13 percent increase effective April 1, 2003 — not a 39 percent increase, as this

minister tries to spin it, but a 13 percent increase. He made decisions on

non-pecuniary issues, such as working conditions — I'll get to those in a moment

— level and process of advancement, professional development and working

conditions for Crown prosecutors in remote areas of the province. The Liberal

government rejected all of that. They appealed that decision.

[1710]

Pursuant to the legislation, the appeal was heard by Mr. Jones in

February of 2005. Here's what Jones determined. He said that the government must

implement the decision of the Taylor award. There would be a 13 percent raise in

pay over the three-year term of the contract commencing April 1, 2003 — so

13-zero-and-zero. Not 13-13-and-13, but 13-zero-and-zero. He said that any

rejection of the Taylor award was "not rational, legitimate or in good faith."

He also went on to say that there was not a single rationale for rejection that

was "reasoned," and he determined that the government did not negotiate in good

faith.

My question is this: how is it that the Minister of Labour can

determine that Crown prosecutors will have any confidence in the Attorney

General — who is responsible for this, by the way — when his government is

legislating a bad-faith deal and is willing to overturn the law simply to have

its own way?

Hon. G. Bruce: Just for clarification: the Taylor award was

a three-person panel; two were in favour and one was opposed. The Attorney

General had the right to reject and did so. The Crowns appealed that decision,

and that then was the Jones arbitration.

With respect to labour market adjustment, first of all, I'd like

to be clear. For the record and for anybody out there in TV land who is

listening: these are hard-working people, and they do a good job for British

Columbia. The award was such that they were suggesting the 13 percent be in the

first year. What we have done is acknowledged that, only we're giving it in the

third year because of the fact that we're in a government mandate of

zero-and-zero in those same two years. To be fair and balanced to all the people

in the public sector, we felt that needed to be done.

In regards to the comparators across the country, it's clear that

we are in good stead relative to Ontario, Alberta and the federal government.

They are higher, as we explained and spoke about yesterday. Ontario is higher.

With this adjustment, we would be higher than Alberta. The acknowledgment could

be that they haven't yet decided on what their compensation would be for '06-07.

I acknowledged that yesterday.

J. MacPhail: No, you didn't.

Hon. G. Bruce: I did. I also acknowledged — and I want to

be clear on this — the apples to apples of the hours paid, not the hours worked.

I think we have to be fair and balanced in this. In the discussion that was had

yesterday, we were talking about the hours of work as listed in Ontario, the

federal government and Alberta, as compared to the hours listed in British

Columbia. It was not necessarily the hours worked. If you were going to compare

the dollar figure of the minimum, the dollar figure of the maximum, the hours of

work that are itemized and also the benefits or the holidays — when, in fact, we

had a greater number of holidays in British Columbia…. All of those go into that

comparator.

From a labour market adjustment, as we've tried to do in all the

categories across the public sector…. Where there have been, in our view, the

criteria that would substantiate a labour market adjustment, we've given that

labour market adjustment within the zero-zero mandate. We didn't feel at this

point, with where these numbers were here and what we're faced with on this

arbitration, that we had the mandate of zero-and-zero. We have put the 13

percent on the last year.

[1715]

J. MacPhail: I love the minister's coached explanation of

what they did with this arbitration. It's a three-person arbitration, and

because their nominee votes against the arbitration, that gives them the moral

right to reject the arbitration process completely. Again it shows the

arrogance. "We didn't get our way on a three-person panel, so we threw the whole

process out." That's supposed to be a legitimate defence.

What if it had worked the other way? Mr. Chair, just think how

vulnerable people are in this province to

[ Page 12260 ]

this government's dictatorial approach. What if the arbitrator had ruled in

favour of the government's position and the Crown counsel's nominee had objected

to the arbitration? Would this government have then tolerated the Crown counsel

saying: "We don't like the arbitration process. We're going to go out on

strike"? No. They would have said: "Hey. This is the arbitration process. This

is the law of the land. You have to live with it, Crown counsel." But oh, no —

not this government. They lose an arbitration, and then they have the gall to

stand up and say: "Well, our person on the arbitration board didn't like it."

How dare this minister stand up and insult Crown counsel like he

just did about the hours of work? We'll get to the hours of work in a moment,

and I'll read into the record what Crown counsel are saying about this

government's treatment of them. I'll read into the record, but right now I'll

deal with the wages.

This minister's government went to the arbitration and accepted

Ontario and Alberta and the Department of Justice in Ottawa as the accepted

comparators, and now the minister says: "Oh, well. So what?" Then he tries to

say: "We're actually raising the wages by 13 percent two years later than what

two arbitrators awarded, and it's the same as in Ontario, Alberta and the

Department of Justice." No, it isn't. Not one of those jurisdictions has

negotiated wages yet for Crown counsel for '06-07. The minute this award is

shoved down the throats through legislation by every single one of these Liberal

backbenchers, the Crown counsel will already be behind again — substantially

behind.

This minister has the gall, in a coached way from his colleagues,

to stand up and say: "Well, this is all legitimate." The only ground on which

anyone — either party — was allowed to appeal the original arbitration award was

on grounds of reason — reasoned grounds. The second arbitrator found explicitly

that the government didn't have one reasoned ground to appeal the award. Shame

on them.

Section 1 approved on division.

section 2.

J. MacPhail:

Section 2 talks about the terms of the

imposition of the wages and working conditions on Crown counsel. The minister

just now talked about hours of work. Yesterday he was on the radio saying: "Our

Crown counsel have a 35-hour workweek, and in other jurisdictions they have a

36-hour workweek." Well, let me read into the record how he insulted Crown

counsel. Let me just read it, Mr. Chair. The government itself brought on this

criticism.

This is a letter dated today. It's from Michael van Klaveren. He's

the president of the B.C. Crown Counsel Association. It's to the Minister of

Skills Development and Labour.

[1720]

"Dear Sir:

"I write to you in my capacity as

president of the British Columbia Crown Counsel Association, asking you

that you publicly clarify comments that you have made and issue an apology to

Crown counsel and their families.

"In justifying your legislation nullifying the

arbitration ruling of Mr. Jones, QC, you have stated publicly, and most recently

in the Legislature yesterday, that prosecutors have a 35-hour workweek. This

statement is completely false. It is not uncommon for Crown counsel to routinely

work 50, 60 or 70 hours a week. Certainly that is so whether they are on a

complex, lengthy trial, where it is not uncommon to work every day of the week

including weekends, or staffing the remand courts and everything in between.

"Your statements are disrespectful of Crown

counsel

and their families. Far too often have spouses of Crown counsel had to soldier

on with family life while Crown counsel have put in those long working days for

which they do not receive any overtime compensation. You obviously have not

informed yourself of what it is that Crown counsel do on a day-to-day basis and

how they serve the public. I would ask that you do so by consulting management

in the Ministry of Attorney General and then publicly clarify the truth of the

matter.

"Management will tell you that a 35-hour

workweek

is a fiction that is an accounting artifact necessary to accommodate the payroll

system and does not reflect reality. I would also suggest that you contact

members of the defence bar and members of the judiciary. In fact, you may wish

to speak to Bill Smart, QC, who authored a report on Crown counsel workload.

Perhaps you should also consult the Attorney General. It is simply a well-known

fact that Crown counsel work very long hours. Your misunderstanding of this

issue is consistent with your government's general misunderstanding of its legal

obligations to apply with Jones, QC's ruling. We look forward to your prompt

attention to this matter."

Here's what got the Crown counsel so riled. This minister

stands up and says: "Hey, our B.C. Crown counsel have better working conditions

than other jurisdictions. Look at their workweek. It's less than other

jurisdictions."

Well, what we know is that the only reason anyone ever says they

have a 35-hour workweek is to accommodate their pay within a computerized

accounting system. In other words, that's the salary they get. They get no

overtime, no time in lieu. That's the salary they get for a calendar workweek.

The minister has the gall to interpret that as a 35-hour workweek. Shame on him.

Here are two other letters that I just received. These are both

from women. These are from women who are Crown counsel, in response to the

minister's insult about how hard they work.

"I argue cases in the Court of Appeal and occasionally the

Supreme Court of Canada. My job is to ensure that convictions of some of the

most serious offences known to the law are upheld. I love my job. I'm committed

to serving the public by being the best prosecutor I can be. However, the

government's recent actions, compounded by the Minister of Labour's ill-informed

blathering both in the press and the Legislature about our situation, make me

sick to my stomach