Since budget day last week, the New Democratic Party has pressed the B.C. Liberals for details of their plan to balance the books by selling off hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus property and other assets.
But to date the Liberals have said little, raising further questions about whether the asset sale was as well-planned as the budget implied.
"The province undertook a targeted review of its major asset base to identify those that were surplus to its needs and no longer offered a financial or strategic ownership benefit," was the way the exercise was described in the budget papers.
The review, in turn, produced "an inventory of surplus properties and assets ... those that are no longer in use, not required for future utilization, or where there was no strategic benefit for the province to be the owner."
Specific examples included a seven-hectare site north of Kelowna being held for a prison that will be built elsewhere in the Okanagan, and 15 hectares of land in Surrey no longer needed for hospital expansion because that, too, is proceeding at another location.
Far from being an everything-must-go compilation, the assets designated as expendable were said to comprise "less than two per cent" of the province's total holdings.
Still the list was said to include "over 100 properties and assets," each with "an assessed value of $1 million and higher ... we expect they will raise more than $700 million." For the fiscal year starting in 2013, sales were projected to bring in $475 million and for the year after, a further $231 million.
Not $707 million over the two years, nor $705 million. But, as more than one New Democrat noted this week, $706 million "precisely." Which also happens to be enough money to turn what would otherwise be deficits in those budgets into modest surpluses.
All of which prompted questions about how those numbers were derived, and whether the government would identify the more than 100 properties designated for sale, along with the business case for unloading them at this time.
The Liberals have rebuffed all inquiries. Typical was the response from Premier Christy Clark, that the government doesn't want to do anything that would "compromise the interests of taxpayers" in getting "the best deal possible."
It's not clear how publicly identifying surplus properties along with some indication of how they made the cut would compromise what is touted to be a fair and open bidding process in any event.
But a possible clue to the government's hesitation emerged when the Opposition raised a concern about the impact on first nations.
The courts have obliged government to consult first nations when developing or selling Crown land. That land could also be used to settle native claims.
The budget acknowledged as much, albeit only briefly: "The province respects the need to consult with first nations on the disposition of any Crown lands."
On that point, Opposition MLA Scott Fraser asked: "What lands are avail-able, and when did you plan to tell first nations about it?"
The government was well aware of its obligations, replied Aboriginal Relations Minister Mary Polak. "There will be quite a comprehensive process to identify which properties, which lands, and I want to assure the member that assets that have been offered for treaty settlements are not a part of this sale."
But "what consultation took place with first nations before this government announced a $706-million bud-get plan to liquidate public property?" asked Fraser.
None yet, replied Polak. "Once the properties have been identified then, of course, we will engage in the appropriate consultation. But it's quite illogical to suggest that we could consult on specific lands when we don't know what they might be yet."
Note the tense: "There will be a comprehensive process ... Once the properties have been identified .... we don't know what they might be yet."
She's talking about a process that will take place in the future. But at this point she and the other ministers don't know what properties will be earmarked for sale.
Contrast that with the budget documents, which speak of a comprehensive review that has already taken place, leading to the identification of more than 100 surplus assets already designated for "release."
Perhaps Polak and her ministry simply haven't been told which parcels have been destined for the auction block. But perhaps she's right that the list is a work in progress, implying that the only thing fixed is the revenue target.
The latter possibility suggested itself to NDP finance critic Bruce Ralston, who turned it into a question for Clark: "The asset recovery that's spoken of - $475 million in the second year of the fiscal plan and $231 million in the following year. Will the premier confirm that those numbers are simply made up to plug a hole in the fiscal plan? "
No answer. Barring one, along with the release of the list of 100 properties and a business plan, one could readily conclude that the Liberals are once again making it up as they go along.
