2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament


SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES


MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Wednesday, November 3, 2010


12 noon


Douglas Fir Committee Room


Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.


Present: John Les, MLA (Chair); Doug Donaldson, MLA (Deputy Chair); Norm Letnick, MLA; Michelle Mungall, MLA; Bruce Ralston, MLA; John Rustad, MLA; Jane Thornthwaite, MLA; John van Dongen, MLA


Unavoidably Absent: Don McRae, MLA; Bill Routley, MLA


1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 12:28 p.m.


2. It was moved by Doug Donaldson, MLA that the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services denounce the way the Premier and Minister of Finance ignored British Columbians, who in good faith participated in the Committee's consultations, by spending the $650 million in unanticipated revenue in the 2011/12 budget before Committee members could carefully consider the submissions of the public and make its recommendations to the Minister of Finance.


3. The question being put, a division was called.


4. Resolved, that the Committee meet in-camera to review its draft budget consultation report to the House. (John Rustad, MLA)


5. The Committee met in-camera from 12:47 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.


6. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 3:38 p.m.


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

select standing committee on

Finance and Government Services


Wednesday, November 3, 2010


Issue No. 38

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 1117 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2010


The committee met at 12:28 p.m.

[J. Les in the chair.]


J. Les (Chair): I'm calling the meeting to order and need a motion to….


Government Revenues and
Work of Finance Committee


D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Mr. Chair, before we move into in camera, I'd like to put a topic on the record. I have a motion here that says:


"Be it resolved that the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services denounce the way the Premier and the Minister of Finance ignored British Columbians, who in good faith participated in the Committee's consultations, by spending the $650 million in unanticipated revenue in the 2011/12 budget before Committee members could carefully consider the submissions of the public and make its recommendations to the Minister of Finance."


I have copies.


J. Les (Chair): Do you have additional copies for the other members as well? Okay. Good.


A Voice: That's a motion on the floor?


J. Les (Chair): Yeah, the motion will be on the floor. Actually, John van Dongen should get in here so that he can fully…. Okay. There's John.


Let's treat the media as if they don't exist for a couple of hours, if we can.


John, we're not in camera yet. Doug has just made a motion. There's a copy on the table in front of you.


The motion is on the floor if you wish to debate it at all — starting with the mover, Doug.


[1230]

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): We believe, as the opposition members of this committee, that the Premier showed contempt for all the people who took part in this process by not even waiting to hear the recommendations based on that input.


We know that the Finance Minister set up the consultation process September 15 by pointing out there was $650 million in unanticipated revenues for 2011-12. He asked that people frame their presentations to the committee around: "What would you do with additional resources? Would you fund new programs and services, would you reduce the debt, or would you cut personal income taxes?" I'm reading directly from the consultation document that Colin Hansen presented to our committee.


Before even waiting to hear back on those three questions, the Premier and the Finance Minister made an announcement last week endorsing a cut in personal income taxes, and that has subverted the work of this committee. We don't believe that's right. We believe that the people out in the regions have the solutions to the challenges they face, and we were looking forward to treating that in a fair manner and making the recommendations to the Finance Minister that this committee is legislated to undertake.


J. Les (Chair): Okay. Any further discussion?


J. Rustad: Thank you to the member for putting this motion on the floor. I actually feel this motion is somewhat inappropriate because, as part of the Finance Committee, the recommendations that we bring forward to government are recommendations that we hear, that we believe should move forward and that the Finance Minister still has the ability and flexibility to be able to make some decisions around.


I find that the motion seems to suggest that the opposition is no longer interested in making recommendations coming forward because they feel there is no more flexibility, although I disagree. I think there is flexibility, and I still believe that the work this committee does is very valid and very important for the people in this province.


Furthermore, I also do not believe that this committee has the ability to in any way inhibit or prevent the leader or the Premier of the province and the executive council from being able to make decisions that they feel are important for the future of the province, that they feel are important for building the economy and building confidence and building families across the province.


So I feel, once again, that this motion is inappropriate, particularly in the context of the work that we still, as a committee, need to undertake leading up to the submission to the Finance Minister by November 15.


B. Ralston: The document that was circulated by the Minister of Finance put certain questions to the public. It showed that the government was anticipating projected revenue over the next three fiscal years of $2.1 billion in what was described as available revenue — leaving aside whether or not those projections are accurate or there's a certain volatility in those projections. But the Finance Minister doesn't seem to have done that.


The paper asked: "What's most important to you? What are your priorities if the government had additional resources? Fund new programs and services? Reduce the debt? Cut personal incomes taxes?" Those were the choices that the Finance Minister charged the committee with. It is a statutory process, and it's part of building the budget. Those were the questions that were posed to people.


What happened last week was that the Minister of Finance…. John Rustad can say what he likes about there being flexibility. There's not. The Finance Minister
[ Page 1118 ]
has said what's going to happen in the budget next year — that most of the money is going to be allocated for a much-ballyhooed cut in personal income tax.


The decision has been made, and this committee has been completely cut out of the process. I think it shows a real disdain and arrogant contempt for all the people who've come forward in good faith to the committee and made suggestions.


[1235]

It's not as if people don't think that one of the reasonable alternatives might be government spending in certain areas. I mean, let me quote a member of the cabinet, Bill Bennett. "The fundamental problem facing the natural resources ministries is that they're underfunded," he said, adding that he lost three employees from his ministry just last week. "We work the heck out of them, and we don't have enough funds within these ministries to get the permits out the door, to develop the policy, to deal with the stakeholders, to do the work that actually leads to the majority of the revenue that comes in to government."


There's a member of the cabinet of this government saying that one reasonable alternative, as opposed to cutting personal income taxes, might be to spend some more money on the natural resources industries in order to get more revenue coming into the province. So this is really a serious fiscal question, and the process that we've all embarked upon in good faith….


I have a certain sympathy for government members on this issue, because I'm sure, given the way things have gone over there in the Premier's office and the Minister of Finance's office in the last while, that they weren't consulted on this either. I would expect, in fact, that they would use this opportunity to join with us in this recommendation, in this motion.


If the consultation process is to mean anything, it has to at least have some possibility…. No one is saying that the government has to accept all or any of the recommendations, but clearly what's happened with the position taken by the Finance Minister — the unilateral action — is that most of this money that was spoken about in the consultation has already been spent, and we're just going through the motions here. No one can realistically expect that the Finance Minister is about to do a U-turn and back off a major announcement such as the one that was made last week.


There is no flexibility. This money has been spent. What we're doing here is just hot air. The Minister of Finance has no intention whatsoever of listening to us, of listening to the people of British Columbia.


There were a lot of good suggestions, and not all of them were about cutting personal income taxes. In fact, some significant bodies that one might expect to come out with that position didn't take that position.


Therefore, I strongly support this motion. I think that if government members look into their heart of hearts, they will agree that what we are saying is exactly how they feel at this moment as well.


J. Les (Chair): Any further discussion?


J. van Dongen: The work of this committee is set down in law. Every fall we consult with the people of British Columbia, and I do believe that the government has shown a history of looking carefully at the recommendations of this committee. I believe that this year is no different.


But as this process unfolds, government continues to govern; cabinet continues to make decisions. Therefore, I'd speak against this motion. You have to respect the authority of cabinet and government to continue to make decisions that they believe are in the best interests of British Columbia.


M. Mungall: I think what's important to note here is that while maybe the House respects the right of cabinet to govern, cabinet is supposed to respect the public process and the public will. What seems clear is that last Wednesday, that respect was totally lost and disregarded.


It brought me back to an original statement that the minister had said to us as committee members. He said: "Don't wait till recommendations are made to bring forward ideas. If you have ideas or if you hear of a good idea, just come and tell me any old time."


I asked him: "Are you asking us to actually subvert the discussion process that we're supposed to go through?" We take in all of this information coming directly from the public. I think that's the most important thing to think about here — that we are speaking one on one with the public. That's our job.


When the minister suggested that we can curtail that if we think there's a good idea and go to him directly rather than have our discussions here, our deliberations, and put forward recommendations…. I asked: "Is he asking us to subvert the legislated process of this committee?" He said: "Oh no, I'm not doing that at all."


[1240]

Well, hooey. Look what happened last week. That's exactly what they did. I feel betrayed. I was on this committee working in good faith on behalf of British Columbians in every single corner of this province. What I saw on Wednesday was that faith totally, totally shattered.


I have absolutely no trust that what we put forward any longer is actually going to be considered by the Minister of Finance. It's clear that we have no value at this point, and I'm absolutely dismayed. I think the people who are more dismayed than the three members who are here today from the New Democrats are the people of this province, because they put in hundreds of thousands of hours. They put in their time and their energy to make
[ Page 1119 ]
presentations to us, and now the decisions about what's going to be happening with the budget are already being made. I think that's completely unfair.


How on earth can we move forward when that's what has been done? The actions are clear. They speak louder than words. I think it's absolutely unfair, and I think that if the government members truly cared about what the public wants to see, they would join us and say that this is unacceptable.


Our deadline is November 15. All they had to do is wait a couple more weeks before making some address on Global TV and making decisions and pre-empting our process. It's absolutely deplorable what has happened.


J. Thornthwaite: I don't believe anything has been subverted. I still value the work of this committee, in addition to all of the millions of people who have submitted their presentations and their thoughts on how government funds should be allocated. I think that all members of this committee have also spent hours amongst themselves and between themselves, and we're doing that right now. I don't think anything is going to be ignored.


Certainly, we've got choices to make as far as what we're going to come out with as far as the final decision is concerned. At least in my experience from last year being on the Finance Committee, I thought we had a pretty good record of being listened to. I have pretty good confidence that we'll be listened to no different this year.


So I'm fine with moving forward, and I actually don't support the motion.


N. Letnick: Thank you to the members opposite for the motion and the debate, and to my colleagues. One of the first recommendations that I propose to the…. That would have been in camera. One of the recommendations that came from the public consultation was to limit the growth in investment in health to approximately the growth in the economy. If government decided to take up that recommendation, that would free up a lot of money for most of the other recommendations that might be proposed in our report.


So I don't agree with the fundamental basis of the motion — that because the Premier made an announcement regarding a certain amount of taxes, our hands are tied. I firmly believe that we have a lot of flexibility, given that one potential motion alone, and that we should continue to do the good work we've been doing over the last two years, actually. We've all worked together for two years and will continue to work on the recommendations and propose them to government. Then let's see what the executive council does with them at that point. But I think that at this point we should move forward.


The government has a $40 billion budget. Nothing is to say that the recommendations we make have to come from new revenues. The government can choose, if it wishes, to look at other programs like health, as I mentioned, that maybe don't need to be funded as highly as they have been in the past. So I think we have that flexibility, and we should identify some of the key areas that we believe we have heard from the people and we support, as well, and pass it on to government through our work.


J. Les (Chair): Well, yeah, okay. As the mover, I'll give you the ability to close debate.


D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the considered comments of the members opposite. I feel that they've been put in a difficult position by the Premier and the Finance Minister. I truly believe that they want to do a good job, as expressed, and want to consider the input from the public.


But again, the Premier and the Finance Minister presented us with a consultation paper that clearly laid out anticipated budget revenues of $650 million for 2011-12. The question was: if the government had additional resources, what would you like to do — fund new programs and services, reduce the debt or cut personal income taxes?


[1245]

What we witnessed last week was a desperate attempt by the Premier to salvage some part of his approval ratings and his reputation, and it didn't work. Now we're saddled with a process that's been subverted, particularly in this context. So I would urge everyone on the committee to support the motion that's on the floor.


J. Les (Chair): All right, then. I'll call for the question on the motion that you have before you.


Motion negatived on the following division:


D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Mr. Chair. We called on the opposite members to support those who have made submissions in good faith, and they've chosen not to do that. So we're going to withdraw our participation on this committee, in participating today around creating the final report for November 15.


J. Les (Chair): Okay. That's unfortunate, but you're entitled, obviously, to make that decision.


J. Rustad: Chairperson, if I may move….


J. Les (Chair): In camera?

[ Page 1120 ]

J. Rustad: Yes, but I'm going to make one comment before moving in camera. It's part of that motion.


J. Les (Chair): Just make the motion to go in camera.


J. Rustad: Why can't I make a comment? I want something on record, if I may.


J. Les (Chair): Okay, go ahead.


J. Rustad: Thank you very much. Before making a motion to go in camera, I find that the process that was set up for the Finance Committee is something that has been set up in the last decade. It is something that has been very valuable for people to be able to provide input that has never been there before. It's a process that I think people treasure, so it's unfortunate that the opposition has refused to participate in that process for this year. But I do believe it's important that we carry on and bring forward a report that reflects what we heard and reflects what the people have asked us to put forward as part of the work of the Finance Committee.


So with that, Chairperson, I'd like to move that we go in camera.


Motion approved.


The committee continued in camera from 12:47 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.

[J. Les in the chair.]


J. Les (Chair): Having concluded today's deliberations, a motion to adjourn — by John.


Motion approved.


J. Les (Chair): We stand adjourned until next week, Monday, at one o'clock in the afternoon.


The committee adjourned at 3:38 p.m.

[ Return to: Finance and Government Services Committee 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.

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada