2009
Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
COMMITTEE A BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(HANSARD)
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.
The committee met at 10:06 a.m.
On Vote 22: ministry operations, $176,775,000 (continued).
S. Fraser: Hello again to the minister and his staff. I'm just trying to pick up where we left off yesterday. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We were talking about infrastructure stimulus funds, and we had established that there was $520 million available from the federal government for those funds. I just want to say that that was a difficult number to achieve. I know the UBCM had to try to calculate it, and neither the federal or provincial authorities seemed to come up with that exact number — what B.C. was eligible for. So I'm glad we've established that. I think there are others in the province that wanted that number confirmed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Of those dollars, there was a question about the provincial portion, the matching funds — whether or not the money would be categorized as out of operational or capital funding. I know that was an issue. I know the government took that position, and it was one of the reasons given for sort of being late out of the gate and accessing the federal funding. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister let us know how that turned out? Did the provincial funds...? Was that ever reconciled? Was it operational or capital funding or some combination of both? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: First, I would just remind the member again that there were many, many projects announced in April of 2009, and so I think it's inaccurate to suggest that the infrastructure program was somehow or other delayed or late. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With respect to the specifics of the member's question about the characterization of dollars that are going into these projects, I think the easiest way for the member to think about this is to just say to himself that all community-based infrastructure projects are funded with operating dollars from the province and all infrastructure projects that the province owns, like highways and things like that, are funded with capital dollars. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That is, I think, the easiest, clearest way to understand that division. All of the community-based infrastructure projects have now, essentially, been announced. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. At the time of the UBCM, which was just September, of course, the UBCM raised concerns that the money was not hitting the ground fast compared to the rest of Canada, that we were in last place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1010]
I know that there are different pockets of money. There's the Building Canada fund and all that, but I'm talking about the infrastructure stimulus funds. That's the $520 million federal funding that we would potentially match and then, of course, the municipal governments would also match — so a significant stimulus package. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
At the time of the UBCM I know that by UBCM calculations, only 25 percent of that money had hit the ground, even though it had been earmarked as being fast-tracked by the Premier. That's why I was accurately stating that there was a problem in the province, and it seemed to be around how the money was going to be determined — the provincial portion of that money — whether it was operation or capital funding. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister has explained a piece of the question. Was this dilemma unique in British Columbia — whether or not the provincial matching funding was going to be operational or capital? Because the other provinces didn't seem to have the same stall that we had in accessing that federal money and getting those shovel-ready projects underway in a timely manner. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: The member continues to refer back to the time prior to the infrastructure announcements made on September 24, 2009, just before UBCM, and the member continues to quote people from the UBCM making comments prior to when all of these infrastructure programs or projects were announced. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the member would care to take the time to either talk directly to the executive director of UBCM or the president of UBCM, what the member would find is that communities in this province are extremely grateful and extremely pleased with the infrastructure projects that have been announced. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All of the money has been matched. We've got literally dozens and dozens and dozens of great infrastructure projects for communities that have been announced, and I would hope that the member will catch up to the reality and not continue to talk about, you know, something that hasn't been reality for at least a couple months. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In terms of whether other provinces worry about the difference between capital dollars and operating dollars, perhaps they don't worry as much as British Columbia does about fiscal matters like that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you take a look at the province of Alberta, which is always held up as this fiscal fortress of success, they've got an $8 billion deficit. Take a look at the province of Ontario. They have a deficit in the order of $20 billion to $25 billion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We don't operate that way in British Columbia. We're going to have at the most a $2.8 billion deficit, and we don't like having a deficit. In fact, we're very clear that we have a great aversion to deficits, and we're going to pay off the debt that's accumulated over the next three years through deficits as quickly as we possibly can. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So yes, we do take seriously how we go into these federal-provincial infrastructure programs. We want to arrange them in such a way as to protect our taxpayers, and we think that's something that our taxpayers want us to do. I'm sorry that the member thinks there's something wrong with taking that sort of an approach, but we think that's the prudent, responsible thing to do and that's why we took the time to do it right. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: I don't know where to begin with that one. The priorities of the government…. Before the election the promise was a $465 million deficit. The post-election reality was a $2.8 or $2.9 billion deficit. The slashing that's happened in every community organization and good group that does the work in the province, often on behalf of the ministries…. They've been gutted. Those priorities certainly don't resonate with British Columbians, not any of the ones that I talk to. I just try to get around that rhetoric. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The fact is that I'm referring to the lateness of these moneys coming out, and the minister is talking about announcements at the UBCM. By the time of the UBCM the rest of the province was rolling with shovel-ready projects, and we were not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So yeah, I understand the announcements made by the Premier at the UBCM. I heard comments made at the UBCM that the reason for the lateness of that announcement, why we were so far behind, was so that there could be an announcement for the Premier to make at the UBCM. I don't know whether that's true or not. I'm sure the minister probably doesn't want to comment on that one. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister tell us how many community proposals that were put in were denied? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1015]
Hon. B. Bennett: Because the ministry is responsible for the community infrastructure component of infrastructure programs, we're a little bit uncertain about the totals. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is involved in this, and the Solicitor General's ministry is involved in flood mitigation projects. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So there are three different ministries involved in this, but we're quite confident that we're close on the numbers. We think there were 465 applications in total. Just so the member understands, this is the whole infrastructure program that started in 2008, a number of announcements early in 2009, more announcements in September 2009. It's all part of the same infrastructure program — 465 applications in total. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We think that in the order of 183 to 185 projects were approved between the April announcement and the September announcement. That would cover the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and some flood mitigation projects as well as the community infrastructure projects that we're responsible for. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's probably worth, just for the member's benefit, letting him know what Robert Hobson, the president of the UBCM, said about the infrastructure announcements in September, which incidentally, did not happen during UBCM. They happened before UBCM. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is what Mr. Hobson said. He said that "UBCM is very appreciative of the collective work by the federal and provincial governments to deliver this funding to local priorities." He said some other nice things as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, to the member, when these projects were announced, local government in this province was ecstatic. We worked very, very closely with every community on their projects. We chose the best projects across the province in various constituencies. Lots and lots of opposition-held ridings got infrastructure projects. We chose the best projects, as I say, on the merits of the projects. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1020]
We made sure that the communities could get those projects completed by the deadline, and as far as I am aware, local government is very, very pleased with the rollout, both in April and then in September. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: The minister said he's uncertain of the exact numbers because it's a split between the Solicitor General's office and Transportation and Infrastructure. Isn't it true that Community and Rural Development actually is the stickhandler of this money before it goes out? I mean, aren't you ultimately responsible for this money? It didn't disappear into three different directions. It came to your ministry, and you are responsible for all of the…. I'm talking about the $520 million federal infrastructure stimulus funds. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: No, the member is not correct about that. We, the Ministry of Community and Rural Development, get the funds we require to fund the projects that we are responsible for, which is community-based infrastructure — typically water and sewer. MOTI, or the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, gets the accumulation of federal and provincial funds for their projects, and the same thing would be true of the flood mitigation projects that the Solicitor General's ministry is involved with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is something that I've always been kind of perplexed about with the opposition. I hear them sometimes standing up in question period, and they don't seem to recognize that we have a ministry that's called the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. It's called the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure because they're responsible for infrastructure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Actually, my colleague Minister Bond is responsible for negotiating the deal, if you will, between the province and the federal government on infrastructure — all infrastructure, including community-based infrastructure. Once that deal is negotiated, then yes, obviously, our ministry gets involved in the community infrastructure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have the experts within the ministry that rate water and sewer projects, and we get involved to that extent. But we are not the lead in terms of these infrastructure programs; it's the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: The minister has referred numerous times to the flood abatement program through the Solicitor General's office, I believe. I'm confused. I didn't believe that was part of the $520 million of federal funds accessible through the infrastructure stimulus funds — the flood abatement money that the minister keeps referring to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For clarification, how much of the $520 million federal package went towards the Solicitor General's ministry for flood abatement? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: In the first intake that I referred to yesterday for infrastructure projects, there was $25 million provincial money that went to flood mitigation. It, I think, was a 50-50 program with the federal government — so 50-cent dollars. We put in 25, and they put in 25. Then in the second intake, the results of which were announced in September, there were 11 projects totalling $4.1 million in provincial funding. That's the breakdown on the flood mitigation moneys that were awarded. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1025]
Let me back up just for a second, because I gave the member incorrect information. I did it inadvertently and honestly. I thought that the Solicitor General would have administered those programs because, normally, flood mitigation is considered to be part of that ministry. I am advised that our ministry actually administers those particular projects as well. So we are doing that as well as the community infrastructure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. That clears up my confusion. It says $50 million in total, but $25 million of the federal money. That's still only one-half, one-half. I thought that the $520 million from the feds was to be matched three ways, provincial and municipal. Can the minister comment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: In the case of projects where the infrastructure is owned by the province, there is no third party to share. It's the province and the federal government. That, of course, is 50-50. In the case of the flood mitigation projects, they are also 50-50. This is completely in line with the terms of reference of the agreement between Canada and B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With community-based infrastructure like the water and the sewer, there's obviously potential for a third partner in that, and those projects are shared one-third, one-third, one-third. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of that. I've learned something today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've got $25 million plus $4 million, of which I assume half was provincial, half federal. So there's $29.1 million of the $520 million accessible from the feds, a fairly small portion of it. The minister kept referring to flood abatement as sort of a key issue where money was going. It's actually a very small percentage of the federal money, the $520 million, that was made available to B.C. through the infrastructure stimulus fund. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I must say that I have some confusion. My calculator may have died here, but there's $520 million federal money on the table for B.C., and the minister has claimed that all of that is being utilized or is levering all of that. By my calculations, $313.6 million of that $520 million have been utilized, leaving outstanding $206.4 million of federal money still on the table that B.C. has not utilized. I'm already building in that $70 million that has been set aside for Vancouver city. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What about the other $206.4 million of federal funds left over? I'm not talking about that Building Canada fund but the infrastructure stimulus fund. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the member wants to talk about one component of the infrastructure program, which is the stimulus funds, which is $500-odd million. However, there was $58½ million of provincial dollars spent on infrastructure in April 2009. There was an additional $52½ million announced in September for infrastructure that is not part of the $500 million stimulus fund. Then there was, as I told the member yesterday, a $65 million top-up to the Building Canada fund that was announced. Those projects were announced, again, in September of 2009. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's a lot more going on there than the $500 million stimulus. I get that the member seems to want to focus on that, and that's fine. I would say that other than the city of Vancouver and other than some provincial capital projects that have not been announced yet, the bulk of the $500 million has actually been announced. I don't know how the member has done his math. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't believe that estimates have been done yet with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. I would strongly advise the member to ask this question of my colleague. I'm sure that she'll be able to give the member more detail on what is left to be done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1030]
S. Fraser: My questions weren't around the Building Canada fund. I'm asking about the infrastructure stimulus funds, the $520 million. Only $313 million of the federal portion has been utilized by British Columbia, leaving $206.4 million outstanding. These are the infrastructure stimulus funds, federal money. So why are we not using the $206.4 million of federal money that was designated for British Columbia? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Split three ways, of course — multiplied times three — that's over $600 million of economic stimulus that B.C. has not accessed. The minister explained that of the 465 applications from communities that came forth, only 185 were approved. Why were the bulk of the proposals and applications turned down when there's $206.4 million of federal funds left on the table, which would amount to $619.2 million of economic stimulus that British Columbia is not getting? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: I'll correct or clarify one thing the member said. I think the member is under the impression that the $500 million in stimulus money from the federal government was intended 100 percent for community infrastructure. That's not correct. It wasn't; it never was. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the member would review the terms of reference for the agreement between Canada and British Columbia, he would find that, just as there is with every province, there is allowance both for the community-type infrastructure — water and sewer — that this ministry is involved with but also for provincially owned assets such as interchanges, bridges, highways and that sort of thing that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is responsible for. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All I can do in these estimates for this ministry is give the member the details on the projects that involve community-based infrastructure. We did that yesterday. I think the member has the numbers. I can give the member the numbers again if he wants them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's what we're responsible for. That's our portion of the estimates discussion on infrastructure. For the remaining dollars out of that $500 million stimulus fund, he should ask the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. I'm sure she will be able to explain where the rest of the money went. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: If I could have the member direct his questions towards the Community and Rural Development budget estimates for 2009. I'd just like to let you know that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has already completed its budget estimates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1035]
S. Fraser: I'm aware of that. Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I'm referring to the infrastructure stimulus funds. I'm just getting clarification on that now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I must say that I find this somewhat obfuscating. When I ask questions about the infrastructure stimulus funds, the minister keeps repeating things about flood abatement, which amounts to…. Of the $520 million of federal, it's $20 million or $25 million of the federal, so it's a small portion. Then he keeps going back to other funds, Build Canada funds and stuff, when I'm asking about the infrastructure stimulus package. Then he tells me that, no, I've got to go to other ministries to deal with this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When the $520 million of infrastructure money was announced by the feds to be available, and the number was not made available…. All the public got from either the province or the feds was that we were eligible for a portion of the $4 billion that was out there. Nobody in the province got any clarification on the $520 million for B.C. till yesterday in estimates. The minister admitted $520 million was the B.C. portion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now the minister is telling me that he can't tell me where the money went, that we've got to spread that over a bunch of other ministries. He has given me numbers, leaving $206 million of the federal dollars on the table. Now, has all of that $520 million been utilized for the province of British Columbia? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I'm sorry that the member didn't ask enough questions or the right questions of the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure to understand what money went through that ministry. That's part of the estimates process. That's definitely what the member should be doing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can only talk about my ministry. I am intimately familiar with what my ministry is involved in, and I'm happy to discuss that with the members opposite to their hearts' content. But I really am not that familiar with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I would invite the member to go and have a meeting with the minister responsible. I'm thinking she would be more than happy to provide the information that the member needs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the member wants me to read into the record again the community-based infrastructure projects that came out of the $520 million, I'd be happy to do that. I can tell the member — and I think this is the key question and the key answer for the member — that all $520 million offered by the federal government is or will be matched by the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: Last question on this, and then we'll move along. There were hundreds of communities that were denied their project proposals for their one-third, one-third infrastructure money. The minister admitted that not all this $520 million was going to go to the communities anyway — some to provincially owned assets. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Does the minister not perceive a conflict of interest there for the government? I know that it might seem like a foolish question, but bear with me. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Communities put in their applications in good faith. The economic stimulus money was designed to hit the ground for these communities to create opportunities and economic stimulus after they'd been hit hard in a recession. If the ministries are now taking the money and competing for that money with communities…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1040]
It appears there is $206.4 million of federal money that has not been on the table for communities. That's approaching half of the entire federal stimulus package. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question to the minister, related directly to his ministry in this budget estimates, is: were these communities that were denied competing with other ministries such as the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: Well, with the greatest respect to the member, it's ludicrous to use a term like "conflict of interest." The UBCM, local government, understands — the member doesn't, obviously — that when there's a federal-provincial infrastructure program, the money is shared between community-based infrastructure and things like bridges and roads and interchanges. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That is the way it was in the 1990s, when the members opposite were in government. That is the way it is today. Everybody knows that's the way it is. That was the expectation. Nobody was surprised by that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What's kind of surprising, I think, is that the member doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that when the province and the federal government invest in, let's say, an interchange outside of a small community or a big community, it creates jobs. It creates economic activity, and the local community wants it. They ask for these things. They ask. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In my case, there's a bridge project, which was announced in April as part of the infrastructure program, east of Sparwood coming in from Alberta. It's a bridge where we've seen horrible, horrible accidents over the years. There's no local government money in that. It's not one-third, one-third, one-third. It's 50-50, or it's some breakdown of allocation of cost between the federal government and the provincial government. The district of Sparwood, the district of Elkford and the city of Fernie are all happy about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't understand why the member thinks it's a bad thing for the province to invest in infrastructure using these federal dollars. As I say, it is the ordinary way of carrying out these infrastructure programs and always has been. We do have other programs that we've used to fund local infrastructure, which I'll mention for the member's benefit just so he can put it into his notes and know about this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One is called the Towns for Tomorrow program that we started to assist small communities under 5,000 in population. We actually fund 80 percent of the infrastructure costs in the communities. Because they're smaller, they only have to come up with 20 percent. Then there is another program called LocalMotion that we use to fund small-town infrastructure. I'd be happy to give the member more details on where that money has gone. It's gone across the province as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I am a new critic here. So the comments that I might be naive on this — I'll take that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister, obviously a new minister, is somewhat naive, too, to equate historic infrastructure money with an economic stimulus package from the federal government designed to stimulate the economy in a worldwide recession. To suggest that that is the same as the ongoing economic infrastructure money that comes in for necessary road projects and stuff is problematic, if the minister sees no difference there. So he can take his shot at me, but the problem is the province may have had other ideas. Certainly, the communities would have had other ideas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1045]
If almost half of the economic stimulus money from the federal government was actually hived off to do necessary projects — infrastructure projects that already had to be done and were on the books for the province, and the province was responsible for them — I wonder what formula was used to determine how much of the $520 million would go towards prioritized community projects and how much would go towards just general capital projects that the province was planning on anyway. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: There is no formula that's used to determine any sort of allocation between community-based infrastructure and provincially owned assets. I'm going to say flood mitigation, because even though the member doesn't think $30 million or $40 million is significant, I think it is significant. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's no formal formula for arriving at the allocation. It really is a process of two things. It's a process of negotiation — negotiation with UBCM; negotiation, I suppose, within government — and an exercise, first of all, of committing that we're going to match all the federal dollars, which I have confirmed for the member here today and which I think the taxpayers are most interested in, and what we can afford. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We went through that exercise. It was particularly challenging in this last go-round to go through that process of deciding where to spend the money, what types of dollars to put into what types of projects, which projects could be done by March 2011 and which ones could not be. It did take some extra time to go through all that, but what we're interested in, both this ministry and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, is getting the best value for the B.C. taxpayer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So bottom line, B.C. is matching the federal dollars. We are getting great value out of the provincial dollars that we're using to match the federal money. We're creating literally thousands of jobs, even though I don't know why the member doesn't accept the fact that stimulus means stimulus. But we're getting thousands of jobs out of this investment. Some of it is going to community infrastructure, and some of it is going to highways and bridges and other provincially owned infrastructure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: Okay. Well, I'll move off this, although I've got to say no plan from the province on the $520 million; no single ministry that seems to know where the money went, although there are vague assurances that the money has all been used; no rationale for who got what and what portion would be taken away for provincial projects and local government projects denied. This does not breed a lot of confidence in the people of British Columbia today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm going to move on to community development trust. Tens of thousands of forestry workers, their families and forest communities across the province, of course, have been hurting for years under this government's handling of being spectators while the forest industry has been going through crisis. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1050]
A community development trust was set up. Some $185 million, by my estimation, was the total amount of the community development trust. By my estimation, only $30 million of that was provincial. By my calculations — I could be wrong here — $138 million or $139 million maybe has been spent out of the community development trust, and this is to help workers in crisis in the province. So $30 million from the province is all we got, a fairly large portion from the federal government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Am I correct on this? By my calculations, is there still $47 million left over in the community development trust? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: There's between $26 million and $27 million left in the community development trust. The reason that's an approximate number is that although we have a number of applications that have been approved in the three categories, sometimes people don't follow through. Some of that money may or may not be paid out, but if everyone comes through and does what they say they're going to do in these three different components of the community development trust, we would have in the order of about $26 million. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I was off by a significant amount — by $20 million — so thank you for that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The federal portion was so much greater proportionally than what the province put in. Is there an explanation for that? Has the minister ever considered trying to match those funds, considering the magnitude of the problems for forestry workers and their families and the forest communities involved? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1055]
Hon. B. Bennett: Well, again, $30 million of provincial taxpayers' money is not to be diminished, I think, in terms of how much effort it takes for taxpayers to send us that amount of money. We certainly were grateful to get the federal money to help through the community development trust program, and when we put our $30 million in last year, the federal government came to the table again and matched those dollars again. Again, we're grateful for that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The province — any government, especially during times like today when we're in a global recession — has to make difficult decisions about where we're going to spend our money. We had already invested $50 million in the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust. We'd invested $50 million in the corresponding Island economic trust, and there was $135 million put into the Northern Development Initiative Trust. A lot of that money — in fact, I would say all of that money — is ending up in communities that are forest-dependent to one degree or another. We've also put a lot of provincial tax dollars into infrastructure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We just finished talking about infrastructure. There are dozens and dozens of communities in this province where we've invested through the Canada-B.C. infrastructure program in community infrastructure and in highways, roads and streets through the community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've invested in community colleges. In the city of Cranbrook, where I come from, over the past five years there's been over $30 million invested in the local college, over $30 million invested in the regional hospital. We've invested in hospitals all over the province. We've invested in over 30 different airports across the province, all in places where the forest industry is an important industry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have chosen to invest, I think, strategically and within the context of difficult economic times to make sure that we maximize the use of these provincial tax dollars. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: I'm shocked by the minister's response of $30 million. Tens of thousands of forestry workers out of work, and then he starts talking about $50 million going into various trusts in the province. That was the only tangible result we've seen from the murky B.C. Rail deal. The minister is stretching things to the extreme here. Thirty million dollars is what he judges as a fair amount of money from the province to help tens of thousands of forestry workers that have built the economy of this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]
There's now $600 million and counting on a retractable roof for B.C. Place, a $500 million cost overrun on a single building in downtown Vancouver and $30 million for forestry workers that built this province. I guess there's not much more to ask about that, except the ministry…. One of the last things the ministry did was change the rules for eligibility for that meagre money for those workers, making many of them ineligible specifically if they're under 60 years old. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister explain the rationale for cutting loose so many forest workers and their families? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1100]
Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, welcome to the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The main principle underlying the transition program was one of revitalizing the industry and enabling older workers to move out into retirement, thereby creating spaces for younger workers to move in. Actually, despite what the member may think, it has been an extremely successful program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We found that by changing the age from 55 to 60, we could actually help more workers. Again, it's what government is supposed to do. It's supposed to get as much as it possibly can out of the use of taxpayer dollars. We found that by changing the age, we could transition more workers out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We also found that when the threshold was 55, a lot of the 55- to 60-year-old workers did not in fact leave the industry. They might leave that job, but they would pop up again someplace else in the industry. The principle of trying to renew the industry was not being met as effectively when the age was 55, and we think that it actually has worked quite well since the age was changed to 60. I can tell the member that we know that we have helped, through the community development trust, well over 7,000 laid-off forest workers in this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can tell the member that when I was at UBCM, I had mayors coming up to me and tugging on my sleeve every day that I was out in the halls. When they came in for meetings, they said the same thing to me — how well the community development trust programs worked: the transition program, the tuition program, the job opportunities program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would suggest to the member that this has been one of the most successful programs that the province of B.C. has ever been involved in. As far as I'm concerned, certainly from what I've heard from local government, they agree with that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: Madam Chair, welcome to the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd ask the minister to get out a bit more and maybe have his staff forward him some of the letters that come from forestry workers. I've got one here from a woman from Port Alberni. This is not atypical. I get dozens of these as critic, so I can only imagine what the minister or the ministry staff must get. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"My husband was waiting to apply for the displaced forest workers fund for workers willing to retire. He turned 55 years old in June of 2009. At the last minute the criteria was changed, and they announced that you needed to be 60 years old. We have tried to appeal on the grounds that the website posted the age criteria as 55 years right up until Canada Day.
"It was shocking and depressing for our family, who have worked in the forest industry for many years. We are currently losing our family home, which is being repossessed by the bank due to lack of work in the industry.
"We have had the Ombudsman do an investigation but have just learned that the decision for the change was made at a government level beyond the community development funding. In short, we are unable to appeal, and the Ombudsman was unable to assist.
"Our business paid taxes for 13 years prior to losing our contract work. Is there anything we can do to save our home?
"Sincerely," — well, I won't say her name, but I can make it available to the ministry and the ministry staff.
[1105]
Does the minister care to comment? In a gala affair at the UBCM, when somebody pulled his sleeve and said that everything's going well…. What about the people on the ground, the forestry workers that have been abandoned by this government, and $30 million was all the province provided, and then they changed the criteria and pulled the rug out from people like this? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: To repeat what I said a minute ago, by changing the threshold from 55 to 60, we're actually able to help more forest workers. We think that was the right decision, because we were able to help more forest workers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I mean, the opposition loves to get in here and get up on their high horse and preach about how much they care and how little we care. I know just as many laid-off forest workers as the member does. I can tell the member that I know as many laid-off forest workers as anybody sitting over there, and I have spent just as much time working with them. I'm just as familiar with the problems that they encounter and the challenges that they have in their lives. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Through the community development trust program, we provide the opportunity for these laid-off forest workers to make choices. They can make choices. Now, I don't know the situation of the unfortunate person that wrote the letter, and I am empathetic to the person and the family. I am sorry that they were suffering. But this program provided opportunities for laid-off forest workers to make choices. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are choices that people can make around tuition. There are lots of laid-off forest workers who have chosen to take training, to learn a new skill and to participate in the economy differently than they did when they worked in the mill or in the bush. That's not easy. Speaking as somebody who totally retrained at the age of 40, from working with my hands to getting a law degree, I know, actually, what that's like. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have some experience with that. It's not easy. The choices are there, and laid-off forest workers have the option of applying, through the tuition assistance program, for up to $5,000 to help them retrain. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member read into the record one example of not a good situation, and I agree with the member that it's not a good situation. Let me read into the record, hon. Chair, a different kind of situation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A gentleman — I have his name, but maybe I won't use his name. He is 56 years old. He never expected to find himself in a classroom at the age of 56, but after a long career in the B.C. forest industry…. This man is from Duncan, not too far, really, from where the member opposite comes from. He spent 25 years falling timber on the Island here, and he was back in school. He went to Vancouver Island University. He's pursuing a new career in heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration. That's a good skill to have. That's a good trade to have. The program was used, in that case, to help that person, to give that person a leg up. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I have staff here who have dedicated the last few years of their life to this program and making sure that it works and making sure that these moneys are used effectively. It has been a marvellous and very successful program from start to finish. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: The minister said they made the choice to change the criteria because it was the most efficient way to deal with the community development trust. The choice that the minister didn't make was providing some decent funding to the workers of British Columbia that have been devastated by losing their jobs. The $30 million, when you compare it to the giant cost overruns on so many megaprojects that this government has done, is a pittance. It's a shame that the minister doesn't appreciate what is happening on the ground with forest workers and their families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1110]
The last question for me for the time being, because I'm going to turn it over to a colleague…. There was $2 million designated from the community development trust, if I'm not mistaken, into Mackenzie, Fort St. James, out of the trust money for immediate assistance when those communities were devastated by notices of mill closures. Kitimat has just gone through the same. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This has been probed a bit in question period — where we don't always get answers because it's just question period. But since the minister has admitted that there's $26 million or $27 million left over in the trust, will help be coming immediately for the community of Kitimat? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: The member is correct — $2 million went to each of Fort St. James and Mackenzie and with good reason. I'm proud of that decision. I know that the Minister of Forests is as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those communities are almost entirely forest-dependent. There is a measurement that government does to determine the dependency of communities on the forest industry. We determine what portion of the income that's earned in a community is from the forest industry, and in Kitimat's case, it's 14 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[C. Trevena in the chair.]
It's not insignificant, and there's nothing insignificant or unimportant about the fact that 535 people lost their jobs in Kitimat. There's nothing insignificant about that. It is a big deal. However, the member raised the comparison of Kitimat with Fort St. James and Mackenzie. In Mackenzie, for example, the amount of income that's derived in that community from forestry was up over 70 percent. So you've got 70 percent versus 14 percent. Mackenzie doesn't have a deep-water port. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member heard the Minister of Forests go through this yesterday, and I won't go through it all. But Kitimat has opportunities. It's not going to be easy. Doing an economic transition is not easy. I've seen them. Where I come from in the Kootenays, the city of Kimberley is a great example of a community that saw an industry that was declining and went in another direction and built their tourism industry. In the case of Kitimat, we're going to have to do that. We're going to have to help Kitimat diversify its economy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To that point, we have staff in Kitimat. They've been in Kitimat even before the layoff announcement — helping Kitimat develop a strategy for taking advantage of the many very concrete opportunities that they have with the deep-water port, with the liquid natural gas opportunities, the pipeline, the mining opportunities and the recent announcement of the investment in the power line going up Highway 37. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So it isn't a fair comparison, hon. Chair, to compare Mackenzie and Fort St. James with Kitimat. We will not be making the same decision with Kitimat. We're going to skin this cat a different way. We're going to help them solve their problem in a different way because they have, frankly, a different problem. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other thing that I should close with, I guess, is that workers in Kitimat in that mill are going to be working till at least the end of the year, so we do have some time to work with the community and come up with a good plan for them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister some questions about an issue that I'm sure he's heard a lot about and had a number of discussions with local government. The local government or governments in question is the Metro Vancouver regional district, and my communities in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows are among those. It's around the issue of garbage and how to deal with it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think that Metro Van mayors and officials were a little surprised by the announcement in the throne speech that the international exportation of solid waste or garbage would be outlawed by the government. I haven't heard anything more about that since then from the government. I just want to clarify: is that still the government's intention to outlaw the international export of garbage? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1115]
Hon. B. Bennett: The short answer is yes. It was in the throne speech. Government's intention is to remove the option for local government to export their pollution problems to other jurisdictions. We think that's the right thing to do. I would suspect that the member thinks it's the right thing to do. We're not changing our mind on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: When will the government be making…? I guess it's a law that we have to have. Or is it a regulation? How will the change be made, and when can local government expect it to be done? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: Just for the member's benefit in terms of his understanding of responsibilities of various ministries, I will do my best with this topic. It is formally the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment. I don't know, actually, whether the Ministry of Environment has done their estimates yet, but if they haven't, it's a great opportunity for the member to ask the minister where that process is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can tell the member that we did have quite a good meeting with Metro's executive. The three mayors came in not long ago, I think probably a couple of weeks ago, and we discussed — this aspect wasn't a big issue; it was discussed — more generally what they were going to do with their solid waste and their liquid waste. As I say, I think it was a good discussion, and we're going to carry on working with them to help them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But, in particular, the statement made in the throne speech — the government has no intentions of backing up on that. To get the details on how and when that decision will be implemented into formal policy or legislation, the member would have to ask the Minister of Environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Well, we all know, in the area where I live, that our solid waste has been going up to Cache Creek in truckload after truckload, and I'm sure that all of the members of the governing party, just as we are, are concerned about the pollution that's the result of having to transport that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But one of the things I'm not clear on around Cache Creek…. I'm hoping the minister has had some discussions about this. I've heard that the Cache Creek landfill will be full to capacity next year, but I've also heard that it could be up to three years. Has the minister had any discussions with local government about that and any idea on what's happening there? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: Again, the formal responsibility for this is with the Ministry of Environment. I did have a meeting with John Ranta, at UBCM, who is a very articulate advocate for his community, and he talked about the jobs that are associated with the landfill. He has plans and his community has plans to keep that landfill going and to have it available should Metro decide that that's the option they're going to choose. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1120]
I can't with any certainty answer the member's question in terms of whether it's going to be available as one of the options for sure. I know that it's a question that should be asked of the Minister of Environment. Because his ministry is the regulator that has formal responsibility for this, I'm thinking that he's going to know more about it than I do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Then, with regard to the solid waste management plan, I'll certainly defer that to the Minister of Environment. But this is a big issue for local government in our area. Everybody is really worried about it, as near as I can determine, and trying to figure out what to do with all the solid waste that we produce, given that our current option is apparently closing fairly quickly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The plan that apparently has the most support — I don't know the numbers, but I understand that it has considerable support from the chair of Metro Van, and Marvin Hunt and so on are supporting it, and others, I'm sure — is to build up to six incinerators in our region. But those are five to seven years away. Again, my understanding is that they are some distance away, some time away. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our region has to find some way to deal with the problem in the interim, should that be the way that we go — the incineration route. I'm not sure about the minister, because he's from the Kootenays, but members of the government have been very opposed in the past to some of the emissions of the natural gas plant in Washington State, a few years back. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are a number of different ways to look at it, but the upshot is that Metro Van mayors are at a loss as to what they should do with their garbage. If we are able to expand Cache Creek…. My understanding is that Mayor Ranta is certainly a very strong advocate for expanding the Cache Creek facility, given that the other facility that we were going to have at Ashcroft fell through due to opposition from first nations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the discussions that the minister has with his colleagues, and in the discussion that he certainly has been having with local government in the Metro Van region, what is he advising or encouraging local government, to fill the gap before incineration comes on line, should that be the route that Metro Van goes? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: I appreciate the fact that the member is here, not just as a member of the opposition but also as a member representing a community that is concerned about this. I applaud the member's interest in wanting to know where this is going to end up. He's just doing his job, and his constituents should be pleased with that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When Metro came in to meet with me, I had the Minister of Environment there and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations as well, so they had the opportunity to hear from the Minister of Environment as well as myself and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1125]
They presented a PowerPoint to us and went through, I think, all of the major options that they are considering for solid waste treatment. I'm not sure if the member thinks that a decision has been made about incineration. It's certainly my understanding that no final decision has been made. In fact, I'm quite sure about that. No final decision has been made. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They're considering options. They've done an enormous amount of work, and frankly, Metro is to be commended for the work they've done on this. All of their options are feasible to varying extents, and they're going to have to now work with the regulator, which is the provincial Ministry of Environment, to determine which of those options or what combination of options they choose to go with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They did also mention their strong commitment to reducing the amount of solid waste that needs to be processed. Obviously, I'm sure that that principle would be supported by both sides of the House. They're trying to reduce their solid waste, I think, in Metro by something like 40 percent, which is an aggressive target but certainly the right thing to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: My understanding is that Metro wants to get to a 70 percent diversion of solid waste, which leaves the remaining 30 percent, I guess, largely to be incinerated. I guess there are some small parts that can't be incinerated either. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In those discussions that the minister had with those government officials — I understand that the decision hasn't been made, but there seems to be a feeling in my community, anyway, that it's going towards incineration, although not yet decided — did Metro Van talk about separation and diversion, you know, or alternative ways? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Like in Europe, apparently, they have these…. I don't know what you call them, but it's basically an area where you bring in all your garbage. It's a one-stop shop kind of thing — resource parks, they call them — and everything is separated and sorted there. Apparently, they're getting much better results. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other thing is around packaging. We know that there's a tremendous amount of packaging, and it's so frustrating when you get an article from your local hardware store, and it's got so much plastic around it. Not only is it a huge amount of plastic, but it's very difficult to get off. That would be a question, I'm sure — with regard to regulating packaging — that the minister would say is probably for the Ministry of Environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess my question is: does the minister feel, from the information he's had and the discussions that he's had with Metro Van officials, that they're putting equal weight on other options, or does he feel that more of the impetus is towards incineration? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: I'll do my best again for the member. Not being formally responsible for this, but having attended the meeting, I can tell the member that there were a multitude of options that Metro is considering — a far greater range of options than simply incineration. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can tell the member that they have done a lot of work. They've been to Europe to visit waste management systems there, to examine how they work and how they don't work, and they have not made a decision. They can't make a decision unilaterally in any case. It has to be approved by the provincial Minister of Environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I can see that the member is concerned on behalf of his communities about incineration. I think that the member should keep plugging away here for his community, keep his eye on the ball and learn more about the options that Metro is considering. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1130]
But for now, here today in the estimates for the Ministry of Community and Rural Development, I don't really think there's much more that I can offer to the member other than the fact that they're considering quite a wide range of options. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Just one last question on that subject to the minister. Well, the concern that has been expressed by mayors and councillors that I have talked to — some of them — is that, yeah, it's not just about getting rid of garbage or solid waste, but it's also about the generation of electricity. Their feeling is, rightly or wrongly, that the impetus for incineration has as much to do with making money from generating electricity as it does to dealing with solid waste. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know that the government — all of them, including the member who was Energy Minister at one time — is very supportive of independent power projects. So I'd like to ask the minister: is the direction that they're taking — for example, in closing the door on an interim measure of exporting solid waste to the U.S. — in part to support independent power production as much as it is to deal with solid waste? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: The policy that the government has announced in the throne speech goes to our belief that British Columbia should not be able to export its problems — its pollution problems, or its garbage problems — to different jurisdictions. We've made a commitment to do our best to fight climate change. As a small jurisdiction, obviously we're not a big player, we've made a commitment to do everything that we possibly can. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're doing our best to create and deliver policies in the province that allow us to manage the natural environment carefully and sustainably. We just don't think that allowing local government, or even the province itself, to export its pollution problems is an option that taxpayers want us to support. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is no conspiracy with regard to independent power production. That's a different kettle of fish, and I guess the member can take that up with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. This principle that was set out in the throne speech is entirely based on our belief that we shouldn't be exporting our problems to other jurisdictions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: One other area that I wanted to ask the minister about is the regional growth strategy that Metro Van is involved in — the remake of the Liberal region strategy, if you will, from the '90s. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the concerns…. Well, as the minister probably knows, member municipalities are being asked to designate their lands as urban or rural. I know that a concern in Maple Ridge that has been expressed by some folks to me — and I'm kind of watching this process unfold — is that the municipality is asking Metro Van to designate areas as rural that currently do not have a rural designation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Subsequently, the push is to extend the urban boundary of Maple Ridge to include those areas within the urban boundary. If this goes through, apparently it will result in about 285 hectares of current rural lands becoming urban, and some of those lands are within the ALR. Some are not, but quite a bit of our agricultural production is outside the ALR in Maple Ridge. I wonder if the minister has had discussions with Metro Van on that issue and what his thoughts are on it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1135]
Hon. B. Bennett: The impetus behind regional growth strategies comes from the Local Government Act. I'm advised that the impetus was actually created back in the 1990s, and I think that it was a good decision by the government of the day to encourage regional districts to do regional growth strategies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having said that, I have already learned in the short time I've been minister that they are interesting processes of negotiation. We as a ministry and as government don't direct the various parties involved in a regional district. Whether it's the greater Vancouver regional district or the regional district of Central Kootenay, we don't tell them what they should end up with in terms of a regional growth strategy. They all recognize the benefit of working together and having that common perspective on how they want their home region to be in the future. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What's happening today is that there's an existing regional growth strategy in the greater Vancouver regional district. They have decided they want to update it. I'm sure that it was a majority decision at the board table. They're engaged in negotiations with one another on the update to the existing regional growth strategy. I have not actually spoken directly with Metro about the regional growth strategy. I have had a meeting with the mayor of Maple Ridge, which the member is probably aware of, where similar concerns were expressed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If there is a disagreement between the members of a regional district in the process of negotiating changes to a regional growth strategy or in the creation of one, we will sometimes take up the role of traffic cop. We will mediate. We will try and bring the parties together and help them work to a successful conclusion, and we're doing that, actually, in a few situations around the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have to do that sometimes — very, very difficult negotiations. Each local government within that regional district group has a different set of priorities, different taxpayer base and even different cultures in some cases, so it's hard to resolve everyone's points of view. But it's a worthwhile exercise. I think that ultimately they will find the right balance, but we are not going to tell them what that right balance is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Popham: I'm under the impression that the farm assessment review panel falls under this ministry, and I'm just wondering if the minister would be able to confirm that for me. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: Yes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Popham: The report was submitted this summer, and I'm wondering at what point the recommendations would be accepted or would be implemented for farmers in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: When I saw the member come in, I turned immediately to the farm assessment review project briefing note in my binder. The member knows that there are recommendations that go to 2010 and recommendations that go to 2011. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1140]
What I can tell the member today is that we are looking seriously at the recommendations that relate to 2010. We have not made a final decision. It's government. There's process to go through. There is still some consideration of these recommendations to take place, but we're well along in terms of thinking about how and when. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With regard to the recommendations for 2011 and beyond, we are also discussing those in some considerable detail and trying to determine all of the implications of implementing those. We've got more time with those, and we're going to take some more time with those. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Popham: I understand that there's process in government, but the reason I bring this up is because the destructive way that this assessment project was initiated has actually brought a lot of damage, probably, to my constituency, Saanich South, and it's damage that is not reversible at this point. We've had farmers walk away from their farms outside of the agricultural land reserve. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would like to impress upon the minister that the priority of finishing this project is crucial. The reason I'm saying that is because we have farms outside of my constituency — for example, in Sooke — that are trying to make future plans. The way that they have been treated through the assessment process…. I think the future isn't certain for the way that they're able to continue their business. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The farm that I'm talking about is a farm in Sooke called ALM farm. They do a seed business. The future of it is in jeopardy because of these recommendations not being brought in, in prompt time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would just like to make sure that it's a priority, and I would like to know if I would be able to be included in those discussions about which recommendations would be accepted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: I'm sorry. I took a little bit of time to discuss this with staff because I would like to be able to give as much assurance and certainty to the member as I can on this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like the recommendations for the 2010 tax roll. We have the process that I referred to earlier. I'm going to do my very best to effect this change by regulation prior to the end of this year so that it would take effect in 2010. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm not there yet, so the member and the agricultural constituents that she refers to will still have some uncertainty. They should know that we're well down the road on this. Certainly, the minister likes the recommendations and is attempting to get this resolved before the end of the year. I think that's probably the closest to a commitment that the member can get from me here today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1145]
L. Popham: That's fine. I understand that there is a process. I'll repeat again that I would like to be included in some of those discussions about the recommendations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Bennett: I'm sorry, hon. Chair. I should have responded to the member's request. I am more than happy to involve the member to whatever extent she wants to be involved in this discussion. Members of the opposition meet with me fairly regularly, and they're all invited to do that. Despite the fact that I might get a little testy in here with the member from Port Alberni, he's welcome in my office any day, if he has a problem that he wants to work through on behalf of his constituents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The same holds true for the member asking the question. I know that she is an expert in agriculture, so I would value whatever advice she has. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: I know that we're finished here. I just want to thank the minister for making himself available today and answering the questions. I want to especially thank his staff for being here today. I appreciate the work you do. I hope you appreciate that my questioning and probing on issues may be somewhat aggressive at times back and forth with the minister, but it's no reflection on the work that you do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So thank you very much, and thank you all for being here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Vote 22: ministry operations, $176,775,000 — approved.
Hon. B. Bennett: I move, hon. Chair, that the committee rise and report resolution of the ministry's estimates and ask leave to sit again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services
publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright (c) 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada